; .. 









J .-' .^» ;' 









JD> ? 



.>_;> > J»^>; 



3> ^>^ 



<?; ~: <% '<».-•<%> <*-'«&■ 



Slibrary of 



UNITED STA'i CA. ^ 



J5» 

> > ^» > J> 

> > > ;» > >. 



^> > > 



->3 ^a* 









^> ££» _> 



1> ^fc> : 



> > ,> o > > 






V > > > 

, ■>■>■> -^ ^s» X 









^ O >o 






:- .-3g* 


_jyi» j 


;> > 1 


%__ 


--3?^ 


D> 


" -23l_ __ 




5>^ 


1 J¥ " 


i 33^ 3 


^>) 


<%-. — 


Hi 


33> 

3>3> 
>3S5>-> 




-^fil j> 


'»> 




_j^ 3 


I» 


"V— — ! 


jT^' > 


•QP 5 




3? -> 

2* - ^* 


^ 



33 & J 






5» £> > \ 

rS>33 » - 
J3T> v> > 3 

»3>33 > >^ 

• >»1373 " 3_= 

^2fc>3'-3 3 ) X 

3 » > ■ )„ 



m^ 



SZSX3 >? X 

33>>3> > 5 3 

■. S£» 3 > 

32*3 3 \ 

~^>>^ 3 ^< 






73B* > at^ ^SB* I 
"S» 3 > 3*3 3s» ^ 

>>_> ) 3>,3>3» 



» Jfc> > 


X»3> J 




» 3» > :' 


»3> > 




^> :> .>•" 


^r> - 




3> ~> > "' 


^5:» • 


% 


3>> 


? ^> 


J 


>3> _> 


^> 


--> 
> 


3> 3* 


2£» 


:> 


O >. 


33Q> 


> 


^ ->-- 


^E 


.> 


:> 3». 


>J2» 


3 


>^3 

1 at* 


:i3> 


3 

3 



1>7VJS»3^ -> •■■- 

y^-^^» ■ 3 

rl>3>:>'JX 



s»I*3>> .,. 

:1»31>> 3 

>>>33«>:^ 

:t>>3S3»>3> 









5 >2Jm 33 

33 

3 --3^ "3i> 



firm* 

>3^» 3 



► ' )3 ^3 " 3'">> 

► 33)3 .3^3 

► >:>3J>Z2S>3. 

^ > -p> ^>_> 

33 4!>>JI>L33 



miMUTBS 



mmwmm m fscs mmmzm . 



" Is the punishment of the wicked absolutely eternal ? 
or is it only a temporal punishment in this world, for their 
good, and to be succeeded by eternal happiness after 
death ?" 



BETWEEN 

Y 
REV. ABNER KNEELAND, 



REV. W. L. M'CALLA, 



WHICH COMMENCED 



'M the First Independent Church of Christ, 
CALLED UNIVERSALIST, 

IN LOMBARD STREET, PHILADELPHIA, 

On Tuesday morning, July 13th, and concluded on the 
evening of Friday following. 



Taken 


in Short-Hand, by 


R. I.. 


JENNINGS. 


Printed for the Publisher. 




1834. 



5?,\7..4 



\n 



Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to wit : 

BE it remembered, that on the nineteenth day of July, in the forty- 
eighth year of the Independence of the United States of America, A. D. 
1,824, R. L. JENNINGS, of the said District, hath deposited in this 
office the Title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as Proprietor, in 
the words following, to wit: 

ff MINU PES of a Discussion on the Question, " Is the punishment of 
the wicked absolutely eternal? oris it only a temporal punish- 
ment in this wojdd, for their good, and to be succeeded by eter- 
nal happiness after death ?" between Rev. Abner Kneeland and 
Rev. William M'Calla, which commenced at the First Indepen- 
dent Church of Christ, called Universalist, in Lombard street, 
Philadelphia, on Tuesday morning, July 13th, and concluded 
on the evening of Friday following." 

In conformity to the act of the Congress of the "United States, intitu- 
led, " An act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies 
of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such 
Copies, during the times therein mentioned"— and also to the act, en- 
titled, " an act for the encouragement of Learning by securing the 
copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of 
such Copies, during the time therein mentioned," and extending the 
Benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching histo- 
rical and other prints," 

D. CALDWELL, 

Clerk of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



mmoBVCTiom 



On the third day of July, Anno Domini, 1824, the following letter was 
left at the house of Mr. Kneeland, No. 31, South Second street, Phila- 
delphia. 

No. 1. 

Mr. KjfEELATTO, 

It is said that the Universalists have two Churches in this city, and 
there is a report in circulation that permission has been asked and ob- 
tained for me to preach in one of them. If I ever gave leave to any of 
my friends to make this request for me, (which is quite probable,) it 
was done inadvertently. But as it was granted, I take this opportunity 
of acknowledging the favour, and of informing you, or your friends 
through you, tiiat for the present, the acceptance of it is declined. — ■ 
This is done, not from a belief that it is unlawful to preach our distin- 
guishing doctrines in such a place, but because I prefer coming in con- 
tact with you, in a manner which has hitherto been more agreeable to 
your wishes. I am informed that you have discussed the most promi- 
nent question in your creed with several laymen, a id that you have, 
privately and publicly, given verbal and written invitations to the cler- 
gy in general, to defend their faith in public debate. This general in- 
vitation was published, perhaps, in the first edition of your " Lectures 
on the doctrine of Universal Benevolence/' in 1819. You tell us that 
this was not noticed. In the preface of your 2d edition, in the present 
year, you inform us, that ''this is considered as a silent acknowledg- 
ment that, in the opinion of the clergy generally, the work is unanswer- 
able : otherwise, being so often and so respectfully called upon to con- 
sider the doctrine and arguments here advanced, and point out the er. 
rors, if there be any, it is difficult to account for their silence on this 
s ubject." Subsequently, in page 198, you inform us in a note, that 
your principles were published in New Hampshire, in 1805, and New- 
York, 1816. — " And at each publication the learned clergy have been 
respectfully called upon to shew wherein these statements are incor- 
rect. They have not seen fit to do it, and it is believed, for this good 
reason, because they know the statements are true." Accordingly, in 
the preface of this 2d edition, " The author, once more, respectfully 
invites and entreats the clergy of other denominations, or some one of 
them, the more learned the better, to discuss this important subject 



IV INTRODUCTION. 

with him ; and to point out to him and the public, the supposed errors 
of the following- work." 

When your friends witness your great anxiety to submit your senti- 
ments to unlimited investigation by word or writing, in private or in 
public, they admire and praise your candour and magnanimity, in pro- 
portion as they condemn our reluctance to encounter you. It is to be 
hoped that we shall not now change sides, and that a willingness on our 
part shall not cool your ardour for the contest. If God spare my life, 
it appears probable that I shall labour for some time in the city. With- 
out any claims to superior learning, I do, after prayer and mature de- 
liberation, feel disposed to comply with your reasonable requisition, 
and to gratify your repeated and urgent entreaties for a public discus- 
sion. That this may be prosecuted to advantage, it should be done in 
an orderly manner, according to a plan previously arranged. If you 
agree to such a measure, I should be g-lad, if, in your answer to this let- 
ter, you would give me the precise point which you mean to defend, in 
opposition to the absolute eternity of the sinner's future punishment. — 
Do you plead for the annihilation of the wicked, as the Destructionists 
do ? I)o you believe in their restoration to heaven after being punish, 
ed in hell ? And if so, do you believe this punishment to be gratuitous, 
disciplinary, penitentiary, or satisfactory ? Or do you believe that they 
are all, without going to hell, saved at death, or at the general resurrec- 
tion, after receiving condign punishment on earth, or after receiving, 
not a condign, but a gratuitous, a penitentiary, or a disciplinary punish- 
ment? It is hoped that your answer, as soon as convenient, will pre- 
pare the way for a speedy meeting. W. L. M'CALLA. 

Philadelphia, 69 North Third st. Jtdy 2, 1824. 
Mr. Abner Kneeland. 



No. 2. 
Mr. M'Calla, 

Your letter of July 2d was received during my absence. I returned 
from New York last evening-, and embrace the first opportunity this 
morning to reply. You are under an entire mistake, sir, in supposing- 
that I have " privately and publicly given verbal and written invitations 
to the clergy in general to defend their faith in public debate." I have 
never solicited a public debate with any man, either clergyman or lay- 
man, unless what I have written in the preface to the second edition to 
my lectures can be so construed. And even there the discussion is 
limited to the supposed errors of that work; at the same time nothing- 
is said about a public debate. My ideas are before the public, in print, 
and if any important errors are contained in them, I expect they will 
be pointed out to me and the public in the same way ; namely, from the 
press. That 1 have discussed some important doctrinal points with lay- 
men, in a society instituted for that purpose, is true ; and I wish to have 



INTRODUCTION. V 

it distinctly understood, that while I have never solicited a public de- 
bate with any man, I have never declined one, and should I now come 
in " contact" with a clergyman, in this way, it would not be the first 
time. What I have solicited, is to have the supposed errors of my 
Lectures pointed out: If that is to be the subject, the discussion must 
be limited to what is there written. 

Should the subject of the Lectures be waved, (to which I have no 
objection,) I should come to the main question at once, namely, Does 
the law of God require that sin, committed here in time, and in this 
state of mortality, should be punished in eternity, or beyond death, 
meaning- to be understood by that term, a dissolution of this mortal ex- 
istence ? I shall deny the existence of any such law, and consequently 
of any such punishment. Hence we should have no occasion to discuss 
either the nature or the duration of punishment, unless the fact can 
first be proved. I shall contend, however, that no punishment, as 
coming' from God will be incompatible with infinite and divine love to 
the individual that is punished. A. KNEEL AND, 

Philadelphia^ 31 South Second st. July 7, 1824. 
Mr. W. L. M'Calla. 



No. 3. 

Mr. KSTEELAND, 

Yours of yesterday has been duly received. You inform me that 
you have " never solicited a public debate with any man," though you 
"have never declined one;" and that you have, before now, come in 
contact, in this way, both with the laity and the clergy. As you pro- 
fess a willingness to do the same again we will leave the community to 
judge whether all that you have said and done, and written and publish- 
ed, will amount to an invitation or not. 

As we have soon agreed to meet, the preliminary regulations need 
not occasion much delay. I would propose the following : 

Rules of conference adopted and signed this day of 1824, 

in the city of Philadelphia, by Miner Kneeland and TV. L. M f Calla, 
Duplicates given to the parties : 

1. The proposition for discussion shall be as follows : viz. Is the fu- 
ture punishment of the wicked absolutely eternal? or is it only a tem- 
poral punishment in this world, for their good, and to be succeeded by 
eternal happiness after death ? 

2. Each speaker shall be entitled to an alternate address of thirty 
minutes, and no longer, unless the other party wave his right. 

3. The discussion shall be moderated by three men, each of the par- 
ties choosing one, and these two a third, who shall be considered the 
President of the Bench. 



ti INTRODUCTION. 

4. The discussion shall (God willing,) commence on the inst. at* 
the Church, at half past 9 o'clock, A. M, and continue if necessary 
until noon. It shall, if necessary, be resumed at 4 and continue until 
half after 6, and so on from day to day until both parties are satisfied. 

5. The debate shall be opened and closed by one party in the fore- 
noon and another in the afternoon. And in case of a continuance, the 
party who relinquished this privilege on the morning of the first day, 
shall, if requiring it, enjoy it on the morning of the second ; and so on. 

The only difficulty likely to occur in the consideration of the above 
rules is in the first of them, which settles the subject of discussion. In 
yoUr letter you propose a question for debate, without which you say 
" we should have no occasion to discuss either the nature or the dura- 
tion of punishment." To this I answer that the duration of punishment 
is the very point in question between us, and the only one on which I 
am willing to meet you : and of course I should not wish to turn my at- 
tention to one which would exclude it. This is the very feature which 
distinguishes the Universalists from other sects. And remember, Sir, 
that you are called a Universalist preacher, your book is on universal 
benevolence, and it was addressed to the Universalist church. The fact 
that this book treats principally on the duration of punishment, was the 
reason of its invitation being accepted. If it should now be postponed 
for another, you may afterward introduce another and another without 
end. Some would suspect this to be a plan of procuring an indefinite 
postponement of a question which you profess a great willingness to 
discuss. 

But let us see whether you have not done injustice to your own ques- 
tion. Without its accompanying explanation it reads as follows ; viz. 
"Does the law of God require that sin committed here in time, and in 
this state of mortality should be punished in eternity or beyond death ?" 
This is a question about eternal punishment ; and how you could inves- 
tigate it, and at the same time have no occasion to discuss either the 
nature or the duration of punishment," I am at a loss to know. The du- 
ration of punishment is the very jet of the question, and I would freely 
undertake to discuss it, were it not for the very reason which (as some 
would suspect) induced you to propose it. That reason is, that this 
question is an attempt to preclude me from the benefit of all but one 
argument, and that thought to be the weakest one of many arguments 
by which our opinion is supported. You would not permit me to con- 
fine you to one argument any more than to one text, and a persevering 
attempt to do either would be easily understood by those friends who 
have so long, admired your polemical prowess. 

The question as stated in the above rules does justice to you and my- 
self. It trammels neither, but leaves each at liberty to manage his 
cause in his own way. It is hoped, therefore, that there will be no far- 
ther difficulty about the investigation of questions confessedly irrele- 
vant to the subject ; especially as the discussion of such questions was 



INTRODUCTION; Vli 

never made a prerequisite to your former debates with either laymen 
or clergymen. 

As the young men's Missionary Society have sent me an appointment 
■which may soon be accepted, it is but right to inform you that this cor* 
respondence was undertaken on my own motion, after asking counsel 
of God, and of course, is not to be considered as attaching any respon- 
sibility to the Missionary Society or to the Clergy of the city. 

W. L. M' CALL A. 

Philadelphia, 69 North Third st. July 8, 1824. 
Mr. Abner Kneeland. 

Mr. M'Calla, 

Yours of this morning, proposing a conference, or public debate, 
has been received, and now lays before me. I hereby accept your pro- 
posals, and agree to the arrangement, with the exception of a single 
word, entirely unnecessary on your part, and which involves a main 
question with me. I mean the word future in connexion with punish- 
ment. The reason why I wish to exclude this word from the proposi- 
tion, may be obvious : the terms future punishment are so generally un- 
derstood to mean a punishment in another world, it would seem that I 
had admitted the fact of the existence of such punishment, by agreeing 
to discuss its duration, a doctrine which but few Universalists believe, 
and which is not contained (but proofs to the contrary are contained) 
in mv Lectures. You must be sensible, sir, that it will be altogether 
nugatory to talk about the duration of punishment in another world, 
until we have good evidence that such punishment either does, or will, 
at some future period, exist. I do not deny you the use of any evidence* 
or any arguments which go to establish this fact, ; but unless, sir, you are 
prepared to prove this, namely, the certainty of punishment in another 
world, that is, in another state of existence, you must, I think, be sen- 
sible that you cannot prove that punishment is " absolutely eternal." 

In order to fix on time and place, and make such other arrangements 
as may be necessary, have the goodness to call on me this afternoon at 
5 o'clock, or as soon as convenient. 

Mr. W. L. M'Calla. A. KNEELAND. 



Mr. M'Calla attended at the time above named, when the rules were 
<lrawn up, and mutually signed, which are as follows. 

Rules of conference adopted and signed this eighth day of July, 1824, in 
the City of Philadelphia, by Abner Kneeland, and TV. L. M'Calla. 

(duplicates given to the parties.) 
1. The proposition for discussion shall be as follows, viz :— Is the pun- 
ishment of the wcked absolutely eternal ? — or is it only a temporal pun- 
ishment in this world, for their good, and to be succeeded by eternal 
happiness after death ? 



Vlll INTRODUCTION. 

2. Each speaker shall be entitled to an alternate address of thirty 
minutes, unless the other party wave his right. 

3. The discussion to be moderated by three men, each of the parties 
choosing one, and these two a third, who shall be considered the presi- 
dent of the bench. 

4. The discussion shall (God willing) commence on the 13th inst. at 
half past 9 o'clock, A. M. and continue, if necessary, until noon. It 
shall, if necessary, be resumed at 4 o'clock, and continue until half past 
6, P. M. and continue from day to day until both parties shall be satis- 
fied. 

5. The debate shall be opened and closed by one party in the fore- 
noon, and another in the afternoon, and in case of a continuance, the 
party who relinquishes this privilege in the morning of the first day, 
shall, if requiring it, enjoy it on the morning of the second: and so on, 

6. The Conference to be held at the Universalist Church, in Lombard 
street, and adjourned if necessary, by mutual consent, to some other 
suitable place- 

W. L. M'CALLA, 
A. KNEELAND. 

The. articles being thus mutually signed, Mr. Kneeland, agreeably to 
article 3d, appointed Rev. William Morse one of the Moderators, and on 
Monday following, (the day before the discussion commenced,) Mr. 
M'Calla appointed Mr. Nathaniel Kennedy to the same office. The two 
Moderators met that evening and appointed the Rev. William Hogan 
(who was nominated by Mr. Kennedy) President of the bench. Matters 
being thus arranged, the discussion commenced the following morning. 



TKBOKOOIOAK DISCUSSION*. 



FIRST DxlY. 



July 15th, 1824— Tuesday, 9§ o'clock, A. M.— Rev. 
Mr. M'Calla opened the Discussion as follows: 

Mr. M'Calla. — We have now met to discuss a question 
to which I attach much importance, and I hope those 
who now hear me feel that it involves one of the essential 
doctrines of Christianity. One great reason why that a 
revelation from God was necessary, was to supply the de- 
ficiencies of heathen philosophy, and to inform mankind 
of the certainty of a state of future rewards and punish- 
ments. The mission of Christ has informed us of this 
fact, and lias pointed out its importance to the salvation 
of souls; from hence arises my willingness to discuss the 
question, considering myself, while so doing, as in the ser* 
vice of my God. The lawfulness of bringing forward and 
engaging in discussions like the present, has been doubt- 
ed by some, but we have the example of the apostles for 
our conduct. Not only did they cheerfully proclaim and 
preach the doctrines of our Saviour, but they disputed 
daily with their opponents. It is by no means necessary 
that these discussions should give occasion to the intro- 
duction of human passions; the question in dispute may 
certainly be discussed decently, and so as to tend to the 
advantage of our souls. If it be proper to discuss these 
sacred subjects in writing, it cannot be improper to dis- 
cuss them in public debate. It was in this manner that 
Martin Luther held a dispute for ten days with the eccle- 
siastics and legates of the Pope, and the same is true con- 
cerning Melancthon — Calvin, of Geneva, and Knox, of 
Scotland, in the days of the reformation. The parties 
concerned have mutually agreed upon the following, as 
rules for the regulation of the present Discussion : 



10 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Rules of Conference adopted and signed this eighth day of 
July, 1824, in the City of Philadelphia, by Jbner Knee- 
land and W.L. M 6 Calla. 

(DUPLICATES GIVEN TO THE PARTIES.) 

1. The proposition for discussion shall be as follows, 
riz : — Is the punishment of the wicked absolutely eternal, 
or is it only a temporal punishment, in this world, for 
their good, and to be succeeded by eternal happiness after 
death. 

2. Each speaker shall be entitled to an alternate ad- 
dress of thirty minutes, unless the other party wave his 
right. 

3. The discussion to be moderated by three men ; each 
of the parties choosing one, and these two a third, who 
shall be considered the president of the bench. 

4. The discussion shall (God willing) commence on the 
13th instant, at half past 9 o'clock, A. M. and continue, 
if necessary, until noon. It shall, if necessary, be resum- 
ed at 4 o'clock, and continue until half past 6, P. M. — 
and continue, from day to day, until both parties shall be 
satisfied. 

5. The debate shall be opened and closed by one party 
in the forenoon, and another in the afternoon ; and, in case 
of a continuance, the party who relinquishes this privi- 
lege in the morning of the first day, shall, if requiring it, 
enjoy it on the morning of the second ; and so on. 

6. The Conference to be held at the Universalist Church, 
in Lombard street, and adjourned, if necessary, by mu- 
tual consent, to some other suitable place. 

(Signed) W. L. M'CALLA, 

A. KNEELAND. 

In order to do justice to the society with which I am 
connected, and with whom I believe, it is necessary to 
state explicitly, that this affair commenced with the per- 
mission of God alone. I never asked nor obtained per- 
mission of any man to engage in it ; so that, whatever 
may be thought of my conduct, my brethren are not to 
be considered as in any manner implicated. Should I, 
therefore, be enabled to say any thing that shall be of use 
to you, let God alone share the glory. In the commence- 
ment of my career, I will confess that it is impossible to 
communicate any truth unless a risen Saviour shall give 
it to me. I am willing to acknowledge my belief in a 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 11 

triune God, and in my own natural depravity, and my 
inability of myself, without the renewing influence of the 
holy spirit, to do any good. 

The question before you, at this time, is confined to the 
doctrine of universal salvation — " Is the punishment of 
the wicked absolutely eternal V When we speak of the 
punishment of the wicked, it is not necessary, especially 
to an enlightened and candid mind, to inform you that we 
mean not to say that all are punished eternally, because 
all are wicked $ for, in a certain sense, the whole human 
race are wicked, and, therefore, we should admit that all 
would be punished eternally. In the question before us 
then, we mean all who live and die wicked, and who have 
never obtained the pardoning grace of Jesus Christ. This 
is the sense in which the word is to he employed* When 
we speak of an absolute Eternity, we use the word abso- 
lute to distinguish eternal in one sense from eternal in 
another. In conversation, you use the word frequently 
in a limited sense ; but when we apply it to the punish- 
ment of the wicked, it is to imply a duration without 
bounds. The position to be maintained by my opponent 
is, that the punishment of the wicked is "only a tempo- 
ral punishment, in this world, for their good, and to be 
succeeded by eternal happiness after death/' 

In order to save time, it was thought necessary that, as 
I maintain the absolute eternity of the punishment of the 
wicked, that he should tell us what his creed is, which is, 
that the punishment inflicted on the wicked is disciplinary. 
In this he differs from the majority of Universalists. — 
There are two great systems of Universalists ; one of 
which maintains that the punishment of the sinner will take 
place in this world ; the other maintains that it will take 
place in the future world. Of these systems, in each, there 
are various shades of difference. Some of both believe 
that the punishment of the sinner is gratuitous ; others 
that it is satisfactory ; others that it is a condign punish- 
ment, adequate to the full demands of the law — such as 
we christians believe was inflicted on Jesus Christ ; and 
such as will be inflicted on the Anally impenitent sinner— 
and such a punishment as Jesus alone can deliver us from. 
Other Universalists believe the punishment to be peniten- 
tiary — that it is accepted as a full satisfaction to the de- 
mands of the Divine law ; while the lesser portion of Uni- 
versalists believe, with my opponent, that the punishment 
to be inflicted on sinners will be for their good^ to be sue- 



12 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

ceeded by eternal happiness after death. It was requisite 
that our opponent should thus say where lie stood, and to 
which of the shades of the doctrine he held. He lias, ac- 
cordingly, stated his belief in the punishment of the wick- 
ed being only temporal, in this world, for their good, and 
to be succeeded by their eternal happiness after death. — 
This stand it was necessary he should take, before the 
discussion commenced, that be might not change from one 
system to another, as he found himself pressed hy argu- 
ments. There are different systems of Unitarianism, as 
there are different systems of Universal ism, and the be- 
lievers in each of these different systems, when they find 
themselves unable to explain an Objection on their own 
ground, fly to another. Thus, not being able to explain a 
text on the strict Unitarian principles, they have recourse 
to Arianism, which is a milder form of Unitarianism. But 
this conduct will not do — we are not to permit our oppo- 
nent, when he finds himself opposed, and unable to reply 
on the principles he maintains, to have recourse to some 
neighbouring system. This was the conduct of Chaun- 
cey, who was one of the greatest Universalists that ever 
appeared — who, when not able to explain away a text on 
the system of penitentiary punishment, immediately flies 
to the doctrine of the destructionists.^ This is not allow- 
able ; it will not be permitted that my opponent borrow 
the doctrine of the destructionists, when not able to ex- 
plain away scripture on his own system. Though he is 
not now charged with this, yet there is some danger of the 
community so understanding him. In his Lectures, enti- 
tled "A Series of Lectures on the Doctrine of Universal 
Benevolence ; delivered in the Universalist Church, in 
Lombard street, Philadelphia, in the Autumn of 1818, 
and published at the request of the Brethren attending 
in the said Church — By the Rev. Abner Kneel and, 
Pastor" — in these Lectures, J say, page 206, I find a 
leaning to the doctrine of the destructionists — "But I 
have no objection in the supposition that this text is to be 
understood in a higher sense, and that it refers to the so- 
vereignty of God ; who has power, as all will admit, to 
render any being whom he hath made extinct." Just ob- 
serve now, the leaning of this passage to the doctrine of 

* Dr. £hauncey held that the unregenerate would be raised mortal, 
to a second state of probation, and subject again to natural death ; and 
so they would experience one death after another, until they should be 
finally regenerated, and then they will be raised immortal, like those 
who are regenerated in this life. JK. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 13 

the destriictionists. After reading this explanation, I 
was determined to make the above statement. The doc- 
trine which either of us holds, is defensible, if so at all, in 
one of two ways, or in both — that is, either by reason or 
by revelation. In the 85th page of his Lectures, my op- 
ponent declares, that he proves his doctrine by reason and 
revelation — "My evidence," he says, "will be derived from 
two sources : first, from the law of reason ; and, secondly, 
from the law of the scriptures." Observe, again, what 
we mentioned in tiie commencement of our address, that 
one of the reasons rendering necessary a Divine revela- 
tion is, that human reason has never been able, of itself, 
to convince the world of a future state of rewards and 
punishments. But, all who use reason aright, since a re- 
velation has been made of this doctrine, allow that the 
doctrine is of reason. Not only christians, but even in- 
fidels acknowledge this. All nations on the face of the 
earth have been obliged to acknowledge the truth of the 
doctrine. This is mentioned so often, that it may not 
escape your attention. That the doctrine of my oppo- 
nent is not that the wicked will be punished hereafter, but 
in this world — that the righteous only receive a reward 
in a future life. By this doctrine, it would be impossible 
for any laws, civil or divine, to have a hold on the con- 
sciences of mankind. I do not, therefere, yield to reason 
as my opponent would wish. In his Lectures, page 85, 
he gives his opinion of reason, the correctness of which 
I do not, by any means, allow — "No finite being can me- 
rit an infinite reward, or demerit an infinite punishment. 
The most that he can do, in reason, is to forfeit every bles- 
sing which has been given him by his Maker. And were 
our heavenly Father to takeaway every blessing which he 
has given us, he could do no more than to take away our 
existence. This is the utmost, then, which reason, Or 
which justice, (being founded only in reason.) can de- 
mand." These are the expressions which I have noted 
as leaning to the doctrine of the destriictionists. It is to 
me astonishing that any reasonable man should declare 
that God can do no more than take away our existence. 
Does he not, even in the temporal punishments with 
which he afflicts his creatures, do more ? Do not many 
even prefer death to suffering in this life ? We do not 
consider this statement, therefore, as the dictate of reason, 
as though God ^as impotent, and cannot further revenge 
himself upon the sinner who violates his laws, than by 



14 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 

taking away his existence. Justice is the will of God, 
and a knowledge of this justice is founded on revelation. 
In page 17 of his Lectures, my opponent speaks of " the 
cruel and unmerciful doctrine of endless misery." There 
is a great deal in the way of stating a question. We be- 
lieve that the punishment of the wicked is merited, and 
therefore just, but not that it is unmerciful. Of the an- 
cient philosophers, who had nothing but reason for their 
guide, there were some who did deny a future state of re- 
wards and punishments. The Stoics, one of the sects of 
these philosophers, did this ; and Zeno, their leader, ad- 
vises his disciples to take away their lives whenever they 
were in trouble 5 and, if I mistake not, Zeno himself put 
himself to death, according to this advice. I do not intend 
to say, that some examples of this kind among Universa- 
lists is to be of much weight as an argument against their 
doctrine, though I have been told, since I came into this 
house, of an instance of suicide in a Universalist, which 
occurred in this city! But look at the effect and tenden- 
cy of this doctrine, from the history of transactions re- 
corded in the holy scriptures. If it be true, it will send 
Judas, the traitor, to heaven before Christ — The blas- 
pheming thief, who was crucified with Christ, with the 
other, who repented. It will also prove, that those sin- 
ners who caused God to send a deluge upon the earth, to 
destroy them, entered heaven before faithful Noah, and 
his family. It will also prove, that the people of Sodom 
and Gomorrah, who were full of all sin, filthiness and 
iniquity, went to heaven before righteous Lot ; while he 
was continued in this world of sin and suffering, an un- 
happy wanderer. 

10 o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — The importance of the subject which is 
before us this day for discussion, has already been stated 
by my opponent, and is acknowledged by me. It is un- 
necessary, therefore, to take up any furtber time in enforc- 
ing its importance on your minds ; — it is one in which our 
eternal interest is involved, and this crowded assembly 
witness to the excitement it has already made in their 
minds. If the doctrine maintained in the first part of the 
proposition, and which will be defended by my opponent, 
be true, many who are now within the sound of my voice, 
may be the subjects of its awful doom : nay, I ask, can we 
be certain that any one of us shall positively be exempt ? 
I am sure, therefore, with this view of the subject, that I 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 15 

shall have your candid, earnest and prayerful attention. 
— The proposition in dispute has been stated to you alrea- 
dy; it is, "Is the punishment of the wicked absolute- 
ly eternal, or is it only a temporal punishment, in 
this world, for their good, and to be succeeded by eter- 
nal happiness after death." You have been informed by 
my opponent that I have taken the latter part of the pro- 
position to defend, and that this is my creed. It is asked, 
when, or where, have I made such a statement? When 
the proposition was handed to me, it was in the hand wri- 
ting of my opponent, and I objected to but one word, desi- 
ring that the word " future" before punishment might be 
left out: for if this word had been inserted, it would at 
once be seen that I admit the doctrine of future punish- 
ment, and we should then have only to discuss whether it be 
eternal or limited. To the rasure of this word my oppo- 
nent assented, and the latter part of the proposition stands 
in his own words. ISow have I said that this latter is 
what I would defend ? For all that I can see, I have now 
a perfect right to take the medium path ; to allow that the 
punishment of the sinner will be future, but to deny that 
it is to be eternal. — I do not say (I wish it to be distinctly 
understood) that this will be my ground : — it will be time 
enough to state my ground when I come to defend my part 
of the proposition. 

I am surprised, my Christian and friendly audience, 
that my opponent should have spent the whole of his 
half hour, and yet never come to the subject of the 
proposition ! Has he referred to a single passage of 
scripture to support his side of the argument ? If the 
doctrine of the absolute eternity of the punishment of the 
sinner can be maintained at all, it must be maintained on 
one, or other (or all) of the three following principles : — 
either, 1st, by showing that the law of God requires such 
a p unishment : 2dly, That the testimony of God revealed 
through the medium of his holy Prophets, point out that 
such punishment will be inflicted as the penalty of the law: 
or, Sdly, That the character of God as revealed to us 
through the book of nature and of revelation, show that 
such a punishment would be a just inference from the na- 
ture of his attributes. Unless the doctrine can be support- 
ed on one of these principles, it cannot be supported on any 
other. — My opponent has stated to you what he means by 
the wicked : — he acknowledges that in a certain sense all 
mankind are equally wicked ; but at the same time declares 
that all are not to be punished eternally. By the wicked 



16 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

(in reference to future punishment) he has informed you 
that he means only those who live and die in wickedness — 
those who never shall ohtain pardon — those for whom 
Christ did not die ! Is not this begging the question in 
dispute? — and if he really mean those only who never ob- 
tain pardon, to he the wicked, I admit that they can never 
be made happy in any state of existence ; the discussion 
then is at an end. We learn from the Scriptures, that 
" there is none righteous, no not one — there is none that 
understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God, they 
arc all gone out of the way, they are altogether become 
unprofitable — there is none that doeth good, no not one." 
Ps. xiv. 2, 8. Rom. iii. 10, 12. ''All we like sheep have 
gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own way." 
Isa. liii. 6. Now, if this be the doctrine of the Bible, that 
all, without a single exception have become wicked, and if 
it be true also, that all the wicked are to be punished with 
an absolutely eternal punishment, then there is none who 
can be saved. But if he says, that only those who shall 
not obtain pardon, those who are not included in the pur- 
chased possession of our Redeemer are wicked, this is a 
mere petitio principii, a mere begging the question which 
we came here to discuss. For my part, 1 know of no such 
characters, and unless the existence of such characters can 
be proved from the law and the testimony, we shall not 
admit their existence ; for, " To the law and to the testi- 
mony" we appeal; "if they speak not according to this 
word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. viii. 20. 
I shall not detain you, nor attempt to entertain you for a 
momentby considering what others have thought or written: 
I stand or fall to my own master. I have not come here to 
defend the writings of men, not even my own, but to enquire 
solemnly and candidly, what says the law of God, and what 
says the testimony which the inspired prophets bore of the 
will of our Heavenly Father, as we find them revealed in 
this volume. If my opponent attempt to bring into the 
discussion other testimony, it will not be admitted. It 
would not be reasonable that a criminal should be con- 
demned at a human bar, unless the law of the land can be 
found to require his condemnation. — Supposing that a per- 
son be indicted for some offence, and it is contended on the 
part of the prosecution that he should be banished from his 
country for life, would it not be reasonable to require that 
the law which requires his banishment should be shown to 
the satisfaction of the court ? and if no law to that effect 
could be found, would the attorney general obtain such a 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 17 

sentence from the Judge ? or if he were to obtain it, would 
it be just ? Before we proceed any further in this discus- 
sion, therefore, I demand of my opponent, Where is the 
law of God which requires that any of his sinful creatures 
should be eternally miserable ? has it been revealed to 
man? is it to be found in the Bible ? if so, let it be shown. 
It will be proper here for me to inquire of the scriptures, 
what is the law of God? For we are told that "Sin is a 
transgression of the law." What law, therefore, did man 
transgress when he sinned, and what is its penalty ? God 
said to Adam, Gen. ii. 16 — 17, "Of every tree of the 
garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the know- 
ledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the 
ilay thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Here is 
the law of God which he gave to the first man, and here 
is the penalty. How are they to be construed ? what kind 
of death is meant, when it is said, " in the day thou eat- 
est thereof thou shalt surely die?" We have been told in 
books which contain the doctrines believed by my opponent, 
that it is "death temporal, death spiritual, and death eter- 
nal !" Who told this to the authors of such books ? did 
they learn it from the Bible ? — We may understand the 
nature of the penalty denounced upon Adam, in conse- 
quence of his transgression, by the practice of the great 
Law-giver himself. When Adam broke the command, 
and did eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, 
what did God do? did he wait until eternity before he 
punished him ? No, he called him to account tbe very day 
he transgressed. " And they heard the voice of the Lord 
God walking in the garden in the cool of the day ; and 
Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the 
Lord God among the trees of the garden ;" and after 
Adam had acknowledged his guilt, God passed this sen- 
tence upon him, " in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat 
bread," — mark — how long ? — " till thou return unto 
the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou 
art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. iii. 17 — 19. 
Now did God pass sentence upon Adam according to his 
own law ? or, did he pass part of the sentence to be inflict- 
ed in this life, and has he reserved part to be inflicted in 
eternity ? Though the law 7 , and the sentence under that 
law must be perfectly familiar to you all, yet I will again 
read it from the record. The law runs thus : " in the day 
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." The sentence 
thus : « In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy 

3 



1& THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

life." In this sentence of God upon the first transgressor 
do you find one word about eternal punishment? There is 
not one word about future, much less eternal punishment. 
— I wish it kept in mind that I am not necessarily defend- 
ing against the idea of a future punishment ; yet it cannot 
but be perceived that the same arguments which 1 bring 
against eternal punishment, are equally strong against a 
future punishment. If then, there was no law given to 
Adam which required his eternal misery upon transgres- 
sion, when was such a law made? and if it were made at 
a subsequent period, will God ever try Adam and his sons 
by it ? if so, it will be an ex post facto law, and is contra- 
ry to human laws, which, (when good) are a pattern, im- 
perfect, it is true, of the divine law. Passing on in the 
history recorded of Adam, we find he had two sons, both 
of whom, on a certain occasion, brought an offering to the 
Lord, the offeringof the one was accepted, that of the other 
was rejected. From this circumstance, Cain, whose offer- 
ing was not accepted, became envious towards his brother, 
and instead of looking into his own bosom to see if the 
guilt which existed there, was not the cause of his rejec- 
tion, became wroth at his brother, and rose up and slew 
him. Here is a most atrocious and aggravated murder — 
the murder of an innocent and unoffending brother. — How 
did God punish this awful crime? If there ever was a 
crime committed which deserved to be punished eternally, 
here we have found it. But so far from reserving its pun- 
ishment until a future world, God calls Cain to an account 
immediately ; and so far from saying that he would pun- 
ish him after he was dead, he does not even punish him 
with temporal death. The law which required blood for 
blood, " whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed," — " at the hand of man will I require the 
life of man," Gen. ix. 5 — 6, was not made until after the 
flood. Now because Cain had killed his brother does God 
punish him with death ? No : and why not ? Because he 
had revealed no such law. How then does he punish him ? 
46 Now," saith God unto Cain, ** art thou cursed from the 
earth which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother's 
blood, from thy hand : when thou tillest the ground it 
shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength : a fugi- 
tive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." Gen. iv. 
11 — 12. Here is all the punishment threatened. Does 
God intimate any thing about punishing Cain in another 
world? No. Why, then, should men believe it? Did God, in 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 1§ 

the instances recited, punish without any judgment, and, 
therefore, means to judge Cain, and punish him over again 
in another world? Cain declares that his punishment was 
greater than he could bear : Cain, therefore, thought that 
it was no trifling punishment. But when he made this de- 
claration, had Cain any fear of punishment in a future 
world ? His great fear was, that all who should meet him, 
should slay him. But God " put a mark upon Cain, lest 
any finding him should slay him." God was, therefore, 
merciful even unto Cain. — I have now referred to the law 
of our Creator, and to the two first sentences under that 
law. In the process of time the world became so wicked, 
that God rises in his strength, with a determination to de- 
stroy that wicked race, because their very imaginations 
and thoughts were wicked continually : hence, God swept 
them all away in a flood, and thus destroyed from off the 
face of the earth the inhabitants of the old world; all, save 
righteous Noah and his family. But observe, When God 
thus destroyed a sinful world by the flood, have we any 
intimation that he ever meant to punish them over again 
in another world ? not one word of ail this in the whole vo- 
lume of inspiration ; if there be, it is the part of my oppo- 
nent to point it out. Passing on from the deluge we come 
to the destruction of the inhabitants of Sodom — a more 
wicked people never existed on the face of the earth — we 
learn that they had given themselves up to all manner of 
sin and uncleanness. God informs his servant Abraham, 
that he was about to destroy the city ; and Abraham said, 
" wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked ? perad- 
venture there be fifty righteous, wilt thou also destroy, 
and not spare the city, for the fifty righteous that are in 
it?" And God promised Abraham to spare the city, if 
there were fifty righteous persons in it. Does this look 
like God's opposition to the happiness of man ? But Abra- 
ham knowing the sinfulness of the people, spake to God 
again, (i peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty 
righteous, wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five?" 
and God was willing to save the city even for the sake of 
forty -five righteous persons, should they be found in it. 
Abraham still petitions for the city and comes down to the 
number of ten righteous which " peradventure shall be 
found," and still receives the same gracious answer. But 
so wicked was the place, that even ten righteous could not 
be found within its walls, so that "The Lord rained upon 
Sodom brimstone and fire out of heaven," and destroyed 



20 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

the city with its inhabitants, for God will never let iniquity 
go unpunished. But, in the punishment of Sodom, is there 
one word said about punishment in a future world ? My 
minutes are nearly out, and I can only say, that in this 
dialogue as well as the Mosaic law, as we have it summed 
up in the 26th chapter of Leviticus, and the 28th of Deu- 
teronomy, where all the blessings promised, and curses 
threatened to the Jewish nation are explicitly stated, in 
no one instance is there a single mention made of punish- 
ment in another world — Both the blessings and the curses 
were all to take place in time. 
10i o'clock. 
Mr. M'Calla. — One of the most remarkable character- 
istics of a Christian is that he is not ashamed of his pro- 
fession. We are willing to let all the world know what 
We believe. We are not ashamed to own Jesus, and to 
acknowledge him in our words, our actions and even our 
looks, and to stand up to prove to those who gainsay it 
what we believe conscientiously to be the truth, that the 
wicked will be punished to an absolute eternity. We be- 
lieve so, because God has said so. It is no wonder thatthose 
who hold error are afraid to acknowledge it. Whoever knew 
a Socinian that would publicly acknowledge his sentiments? 
If you ask him, he insinuates that he is something of an 
Arian ; if this wont do, he is a Sabellian : press him a 
little further, and when he finds that this will not do, he 
is a Universalist, but what kind of one he will not tell you. 
It is you, who are assembled here tins morning, that must 
be our judges, and it is to you my opponent must account 
for his departure from the question ; for my own part I 
am a plain American. True, I understand a little En- 
glish, sufficient at least to communicate my ideas to those 
who are around me. You will observe the proposition 
which has been read in your hearing is, " Is the punish- 
ment of the wicked absolutely eternal ? or is it only a 
temporal punishment, in this world, for their good, and to 
be succeeded by eternal happiness after death ?" This is 
the proposition which my opponent signed. I gathered 
his doctrine from the general tenor of his book. And I 
signed the proposition with the intention of proving the 
doctrine of eternal punishment. It was for no other pur- 
pose that I came here but to prove from the sacred scrip- 
tures that the doctrine which I advocate is true. On the 
other hand my opponent agreed to endeavour to prove the 
other part of. the proposition. If* however, he thinks he 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 21 

has embarked in a bad cause he is at perfect liberty to 
draw back. 

My wish and anxious desire to prove to you the truth 
of the doctrine of endless punishment, does not arise from 
a cruelty of heart in me nor in my Saviour ; but to warn 
you that you may fly while you have an opportunity to 
that refuge which alone can preserve you from this dread- 
ful punishment. I have already referred you to a number 
of passages in his book which are entirely at variance 
with the doctrine of the scriptures. Whether he agrees 
with the opinion of the ancient philosophers I don't know. 
There is one passage in his book which is sufficient to 
prove that he does hold the doctrine he proposed to main- 
tain, but perhaps he means to prove his own and mine 
too. (Laugh.) 

In the 103d page of his Lectures he says, "To show 
this plainly that the punishment is limited, I have only to 
show that the punishment is designed for the good of the 
punished." But the whole book goes to prove that the 
punishment for every species of iniquity is in this world 
and not in another. He further observes, page 104 — « It 
may be asked after all what are the final consequences of 
sin ? Answer. Death. This is the final sentence which 
puts a final stop to the sinner's career." It appears then 
that he holds there will be no sentence of condemnation 
after death. In fact it would imply that there is no state 
after death, and his observations prove him sincere. 

I will now pursue my former remarks. I told you if my 
opponent's doctrine were true, that the wicked inhabitants 
of the old world went to heaven before the righteous No- 
ah; and the inhabitants of the cities of Sodom and Gomor- 
rah, who were destroyed for their wickedness, went to 
happiness before that good man, Lot, who was left a wan- 
derer on earth : we may continue this remark, and we 
find that the Egyptians, whose hearts were hardened so- 
that they would not let the people of God go, and 
set at defiance the commands of God, were highly favour- 
ed for their rebellion and disobedience, in being destroyed 
in the Red Sea, and certainly had the advantage of the 
poor Israelites whom they left behind them. But how 
does this agree with the word of God ? Moses and all 
other of the scripture writers, speak as if the Egyptians 
had suffered a very severe chastisement; and for their 
disobedience they brought misery on themselves, and they 
represent the Israelites as returning thanks and singing 



22 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION". 

a song of praise to God who delivered them with a high 
hand and an outstretched arm. Moreover, they speak as 
if the Egyptians had heen guilty of a most heinous sin — 
namely, rebellion against God. My opponent tells you 
that sin is punished here ; and they were not punished, 
for it was the poor Israelites that were punished by not 
being destroyed with them. For example — a righteous 
child of God is going to meeting, and having to cross a 
river he falls in and is drowned, would it be any punish- 
ment to him to be transferred from time to a blessed state 
of happiness ? Would it not rather be inflicting a punish- 
ment upon him to rescue him. The pain of drowning, all 
who know any thing of it, know is nothing : it is in the 
bringing to life again that pain is felt — the act of drowning 
is no punishment : so then the rebellious Egyptians re- 
ceived no punishment here, and according to my opponent 
will receive no punishment hereafter. We may further 
imply from his doctrine that the Canaanites, who were cast 
out before the Israelites, and who were too wicked to be 
suffered to remain on earth, were not too wicked to be 
immediately taken to heaven. My opponent observed that 
I had not brought forward one single passage of scripture 
in support of my assertions. Have I not referred to the 
fall of man : the destruction of the old world : and that of 
Sodom and Gomorrah ? and is not this scripture ? But my 
opponent is hasty in supposing that I have got through 
my arguments in half an hour. In the further pursuing 
of this discussion, I shall observe the following order — 
prove the absolute and eternal punishment of the wicked : 
1st, by the scriptures : 2dly, from the account which they 
contain of the attributes of God : and, 3dly, from the con- 
dition of fallen man. By way of inference, we will prove 
this by those passages which apply to the state of the 
wicked, either directly or indirectly. By implication, or 
by those passages which indicate the final state of the 
wicked. By contrast, producing those passages wherein 
there is a pointed contrast between the state of the wicked 
and the righteous. Again, we will show that there is no 
end to their torment, by God's having declared them to 
be eternal and absolutely eternal. W 7 e spoke of beginning 
with the attributes of God, we acknowledge that these 
attributes are infinite, but, we are far from agreeing that, 
although they are infinite, they have an infinite field for 
their exercise ; but on the contrary, they are limited, be- 
cause creation is limited, and revelation goes to prove that 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 23 

they are even more limited than creation. But my op- 
ponent will not agree with me that God is infinite in all 
his attributes. He would make it appear that his justice 
is not as infinite as his other attributes, for example, his 
mercy. 

The scriptures speak of a time of lights and after 
that a time of darkness, which plainly intimates that after 
death we are not to expect eternal light. John xii. 35, 
36. " Yet a little while is the light with you, walk while 
ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you : for he 
that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. 
While ye have the light believe in the light, that ye may 
he the children of light." Again — there is a day of grace 
spoken of when sinners may obtain pardon. Heb. iii. 15. 
"To day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your 
hearts." There is an acceptable time of salvation and 
of visitation. 2 Cor. vi. 2. " I have heard thee in a 
time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured 
thee : behold, now is the accepted time ; now is the day 
of salvation;" which plainly intimates that after that 
time there is no chance of salvation. Matt, xxiii. 37, " O 
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and 
stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I 
have gathered thy children together even as a hen ga- 
thereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not!" 
Again — he wept over that illfated city. Luke xix. 41. 
"And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and 
wept over it, saying, if thou hadst known, even thou at 
least in this thy day, the things which belong to thy peace, 
hut now are they hid from thine eyes." Here we see there 
was a time when they might have known these things, but 
now they are lost to them for ever. God is said to be near 
to us at one time, and not at another — a 1 ime when he may 
he found and a time when he can not. Isaiah Iv. 6, " Seek 
ye the Lord when he may be found, call ye upon him while 
he is near." Ps. xxxii. 6-, " For this shall every one that 
is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be 
found." God's willingness to save sinners and man's un- 
willingness to be saved. Matt xxiii. 37. " How often 
would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen 
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." 
John v. 40. " And ye will not come to me that ye might 
have life." I have now clearly shown from the scriptures 
that there is a time of light spoken of, and a time of dark- 
ness ; a day of grace when a sinner may obtain pardon 



24 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

and a day when he can not ; and an acceptable time of sal- 
vation and visitation : that God is declared to be at one 
time near to us, and at another far from us ; that there is 
a time when he may be found, and a time when he can not; 
that he is willing to save all who will come unto him, but 
that man is not willing to be saved. — I will now proceed 
to show that the wicked are compared to fuel which shall 
be burnt up and destroyed; and that towards such charac- 
ters there is no mercy. Matt. iii. 10. " And now also the 
axe is laid unto the root of the trees ; therefore every tree 
which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast 
into the fire ;" and v. 12, " whose fan is in his hand, and 
lie will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat 
into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with un- 
quenchable fire." Now here is an unquenchable fire spo- 
ken of, let fire mean what it will. Again, Luke xiii. 6, 7, 
they are compared to a barren fig tree, on which fruit was 
sought and none found : the lord commanded the dresser 
to cut it down, "why cumbereth it the ground?" but our 
Lord says there is a time coming on the earth when they 
shall no longer cumber the ground. They are again com- 
pared to tares : Matt. xiii. 38, "But the tares are the chil- 
dren of the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is the 
devil : the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers 
are the angels : as, therefore, the tares are gathered and 
burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this w T orld. 
The son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall 
gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them 
which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of 
fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." To- 
ards such characters there is no more mercy in store. — 
Again, v. 47 to 51, " The kingdom of heaven is like un- 
to a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every 
kind : which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and 
sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the 
bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world : the 
angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among 
the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire : 
there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." It is 
plainly inferred from the scriptures that whatever change 
is necessary to our salvation, it must be made here. — 
Eccles. xi. 3, which has been frequently misquoted in 
your hearing — " And if the tree fall toward the south, 
or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth 
there it shall be;" and I would ask, What Univcrsa- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. .35 

list can raise it up again ? There is a much stronger 
meaning attached to the words North and South, than the 
common acceptation of them implies. The Jews under- 
stood by the North, in the figurative language of the scrip- 
tures, Hell ; and by the South, the opposite state, or Hea- 
ven. Even they, in this, were more consistent than my 
opponent; for they did believe in a place of eternal pun- 
ishment, at least at that time. The milder attributes of 
God, by which I mean his mercy and justice, are in per- 
fect agreement with each other — the opinion of my oppo- 
nent to the contrary notwithstanding. Of this agreement 
between Mercy and Justice we had numerous examples in 
that glorious revolution, when the independence of our 
country was achieved. The most striking instance which 
occurs to me was in the fate of the unfortunate Major An- 
dre; cut off in the fail bloom of youth and beauty, and 
who, although an enemy and a spy in our country, excit- 
ed so much generous sympathy in our bosoms. If ever 
there was a man whose arm was nerved for war, it was 
that of our country's benefactor, the great, the good Wash- 
ington ; and yet, witSiout derogating from the female part 
of this audience, he had as soft a heart as any in this as- 
sembly. This was an hour of trial to that truly great man! 
for while his hand signed the warrant for his execution, 
his heart charged his eye with a tear for the necessitous 
fate of the unfortunate youth, his relatives and friends ! 
He saw him executed ! not that his heart was fraught with 
cruelty : no ,• — no man would dare to say so of the saviour 
of his country, though a man ; but because a sense of strict 
justice required it. And the time will come when neither 
devils nor men shall charge, with impunity, Heaven's 
High Ruler with cruelty, nor say his justice, which con- 
demns them to an absolute and eternal misery, is incon- 
sistent with his mercy ; and it is certainly consistent with 
the justice of God to reward those hereafter who endure 
on this earth a complication of suffering, care, and pain. 
Job 5 — 7. " Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly 
upward ;" and trouble continues with us to the grave ; 
there, all trouble ceases to those who have obtained the par- 
doning mercy of God. And the criminal suffers for his 
crime to satisfy the claims of justice ; shall w 7 e say that 
there is no mercy in it ? Were he permitted to continue on 
the earth, he would continue to prey upon the virtuous and 
deserving. Would this be consistent with either mercy or 
justice ? Then how shall we dare to say that punishment 

4 



26 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

will not continue, so long as we continue sinners ? I would 
not venture such an assertion for the world. — We will now 
take notice of the plan of salvation : we will show the 
penalty required for the transgression of the law, that 
man is of himself unable to satisfy the demands of justice, 
but the punishment hath been inflicted on the Lord Jesus 
Christ for believers, and that it was for his people only 
who believed, or who shall believe, that he endured this 
punishment. Rom. iii. 20 — 26, "Therefore, by the deeds of 
the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight : for 
by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righ- 
teousness of God without the law is manifested, being 
•witnessed by the law T and the prophets. Even the righ- 
teousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, 
and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference : for 
all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being jus- 
tified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in 
Jesus C hrist; whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- 
tion, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous- 
ness for the remission of sins that are past, through the 
forbearance of God : to declare, I say, at this time, his 
righteousness; for that he might be just, and the justifier 
of him which believeth in Jesus." Ch. iv. v. 2, " For if 
Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glo- 
ry." 

11 o'clock, 

Mr, Kneeland. — I cannot but regret, that those in this 
assembly who agree w ith my opponent, in the supposed 
truth of the first part of the proposition, are not likely to 
be fully satisfied, and that they will go away, with a 
feeling, that the doctrine may be true, notwithstanding all 
which may be urged against it, owing to the feeble defence 
which is made for it by their advocate. He seems, indeed, 
to avoid the proposition altogether. I had expected he 
would have brought forth his strongest arguments in sup- 
port of his side of the question, but, am sorry to find he 
has not produced a single one relative to the point in dis- 
cussion. Can you even tell which side of the question he 
has been labouring to prove ? I would rather suppose, 
from the plan he has pursued, that it was the latter. My 
opponent has said a great deal about the punishment of 
the sinner being eternal, and about my contending for its 
being temporal; yet, he says that I wish to conceal my 
opinions ; surely, if he knows so well what I believe, this 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 27 

is evidence that I could have made no attempt to conceal 
my sentiments. 

I will not follow my opponent in all that he has said — 
I could wish that he would confine himself more to the 
proposition before us ; for, if he can prove from the scrip- 
tures, that the punishment of the wicked is absolutely 
eternal, of course I need not attempt to prove that it is 
limited — And if he can, thus, convince me that 1 am in 
error, I am very willing to acknowledge it; and, at once, 
to embrace the truth ; no matter under what shape it may 
present itself: But, I would ask, would any man in his 
senses, say that this punishment, if true, is for the good of 
those who may he the subjects of it I trust that my op- 
ponent will find no more fault with my creed, or with my 
sentiments ; and I must beg that you will suspend your 
judgment in relation to them, until you hear what they are 
from my own lips, and not take them upon the mere ipse 
dixit of one, who has given proof, that he is entirely igno- 
rant of their nature. It is but an easy task for my oppo- 
nent "to raise giants, and then to slay them." 

What evidence has he, as yet, brought forward in favor 
of his doctrine? He has said that the punishment of the 
wicked is absolutely eternal ; has he given you any one 
proof of it? He says he will prove it by the attributes of 
God : if he could produce positive testimony, would he 
rest the proofs of so important a subject, on inferences 
drawn from God's attributes ? We have therefore a right, 
as he has not even attempted to produce any proof, to 
draw this fair inference, that it is because he cannot. 

But perhaps he intends to prove it in his own way. — 
Be it so. Yet I am surprised he should wave the most 
important, the positive testimony, to the last — Is it not a 
little inconsistent and illogical, that my opponent should 
resort to inferential argument if there is direct testimony 
that can be produced in evidence of the eternal punish- 
ment of the wicked ? And if there he such testimony, why 
has he not produced it? It is useless for him to take up 
your time, and to disappoint your expectations, by talking 
about my opinions and the supposed inconsistencies of my 
writings ; for they have no bearing upon the point what- 
ever. Let him come to the question, and the moment he 
can prove his proposition true, that moment I give up the 
contest, and must submit. But as he has brought forward 
nothing for me to answer; nothing in support of his ar- 
gument ; I have nothing to refute. I do not know even 



28 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

how to consume my thirty minutes. He must not suppose 
that I will take the affirmative side, by attempting: to 
prove the second part of the proposition, until the first has 
either been proved true, or else given i\p as false : until 
he does one or the other I shall not be disposed to pass 
from the first part of the proposition. I did not come here- 
to defend my writings, but for the purpose of eliciting 
truth : and, until he comes forward to prove the point in 
debate, he shall have all the argument, and all the testi- 
mony I can show in his favor ; aye, and even my book too 
if he pleases, any thing which will help him along. In 
order to support his inferential mode of argument, he has 
referred yoa to the conduct of George Washington, a 
name which is dear to every American heart, and for 
whom no one entertains a more exalted opinion than your 
speaker; and by a beatiful train of reasoning, has made 
a most powerful appeal to your passions. But what has 
this to do with the subject in debate ? Can the conduct 
of George Washington, great, and good, and wise, as we 
all admit him to have been, contradict or alter the testi- 
mony of God? Was Washington inspired, or was he sent 
to reveal the will of God in relation to the punishment of 
sin? 

Again, I ask, What did we come here to do? Why 
collect this crowded and respectable audience together? — 
"W as it not to discuss the proposition read in your hearing? 
I have, therefore, urged him on his own account, and for 
the sake of this inquiring assembly, if he be able to han- 
dle his doctrine as he ought; that he do it at once; for as 
yet, he has not said one word about it: and, although he 
has observed to you, that his brethren, the clergy, are ex- 
onerated from any participation in this discussion: yet, as 
they hold the doctrine of eternal punishment of the wick- 
ed, they are immediately interested in the support of it, 
whether they like to appear in this discussion or not, for 
if their favourite doctrine fall, they must fall with it. I 
should be sorry to attribute the backwardness of my op- 
ponent to his want of talent, but rather to the want of 
scripture testimony in support of his doctrine ; on the 
other hand, should we convince you of the truth of that 
part of the proposition which we hold ; do not attribute 
it to any superior talent in your speaker, but to the plain 
truth of that doctrine which we profess; for any man, 
who can read his Bible, by divesting himself, if possible, 
of prejudice, will be able to discover its truth for himself. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. S9 

Of what advantage is it to my opponent? of what be- 
nefit is it to you ? and how much nearer shall we draw to 
the close of our debate? by my opponent spending his 
time in finding fault with my Lectures, and with my doc- 
trines, or, by erroneously asserting that I believe that the 
wicked, who are destroyed by the judgment of God, enter 
heaven before the righteous, who are continued in life ? — 
"Where does he find that I hold to this opinion? In my 
doctrines ? Did he or any other man, ever hear me say 
so ? Does he gather it from the doctrines which I preach ? 
Peter says, Acts ii. 34, " David hath not yet ascended up 
into heaven." What advantage, then, in point of happi- 
ness, I would ask, have the wicked who are cut off from 
the earth on account of their sins, and consigned to the 
silent grave, over the living, if in the apostle's day even 
David had not ascended into heaven ? 

When you receive a statement of any doctrine, take it 
from one who knows something about it, who believes it, 
and understands it ; but what has my opponent been la- 
bouring to do the last thirty minutes ? Has he done what 
he ought to have done ? No : for he ought to have proved, 
or to have attempted, at least, to prove from the law and 
the testimony, not from his erroneous suppositions of the 
nature of my doctrine, that according to some revealed 
law the wicked deserve an absolute and eternal punish- 
ment for the transgression of it ? This, the very point in 
debate, he takes for granted, and infers from it, that if 
man is not saved from this absolutely eternal punishment, 
by the pardoning grace of God, that he cannot be saved at 
all. I now call upon him to show that the punishment is 
eternal ; if not, what need have we of grace to save us 
from it ? Until then, he shows the law which requires, 
as a penalty for its transgression, the eternal punishment 
of the sinner, we want no grace to save us from such a 
punishment. He must, therefore, do one of two things, 
either produce the law, or acknowledge there is none. — 
Until he does one or the other, there will be no occasion 
for me to reply at all to his arguments. I shall, therefore, 
let him have his own way. I shall not even try to weaken 
their force. One or other of the above things must be 
done before I attempt to go to the second part of the pro- 
position. 

I appeal to the judges, whether I am under any necessi- 
ty to pass on to it, or even to notice it at all, until the 
truth of the first part of the proposition is either establish- 



SO THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

ed or given up. Unless they say I must pass on, whether 
the first be given up or not, I shall not do it. The longer 
my opponent goes on with his argument without attempt- 
ing to produce evidence of the truth of his part of the pro- 
position, the more he weakens his own cause. If he can 
prove it true, pray why does he not begin to do it ? I have 
asked him to produce this law which requires the eternal 
punishment of the wicked, and to tell us where we may 
find it : if it is not in the Old Testament, I ask, is it in 
the New? If it is, I ask again, will God judge the old 
world by a law which was never given to them, and of 
which they knew nothing ? — I have shown that the law 
which was given to the old world does not say a word about 
future punishment, much less of eternal, I feel anxious to 
consume my thirty minutes, but in truth I know not what 
to say. I have so repeatedly called upon my opponent to 
come forward with his evidence, that I think there will be 
no necessity to call upon him again, if he has any to pro- 
duce. He has certainly not produced any yet that I ob- 
served, and I pay all the attention to my opponent's argu- 
ments that they deserve, as I take minutes of every thing 
of importance which he advances connected with the sub- 
ject, and yet I have observed nothing ; but if either he, or 
any one present in this assembly, remembers any one pas- 
sage which he has advanced in support of his doctrine, I 
now request him or them to mention it, and I will consi- 
der it. He told us there was a time of light and a time of 
darkness. There is no dispute on this subject. Here w r e 
all agree, nor will any contest it with him : at least, we will 
not. — About the truth of what the apostle Paul says, that 
there is an acceptable time and a day of salvation, there 
is no dispute: I admit it in its full force. But he says 
the Jews believed in a future state of eternal punishment: 
of this we wish him to show the evidence — we wish him to 
prove it, or to show us the passage containing some proof. 
Where is his evidence ? Is it the Old Testament which 
says so? Or does he merely infer it? — But even suppose 
that he can show us that the Jews did believe it in the 
time of our Saviour, if such a doctrine be not contained in 
their scriptures, where is the evidence that this opinion 
-was not obtained from the heathens, among whom they 
lived? But if it be the doctrine of the scriptures and he 
will show it, we will believe it whether the Jews did or 
did not. — One Jew has said, "The living know that they 
must die: but the dead know not any thing; neither have 



THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION. 31 

they any more a reward ; for the memory of them is for- 
gotten." Eccl. ix. 5. Another Jew has said, " The dead 
praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into si- 
lence." Ps. cxv. 17. These Jews, I helieve, were correct. 
I am happy in heing able to give you such references to 
those who held the same doctrine in this particular, as 
your speaker. — My opponent has now thirty minutes to 
answer me if he will, and to bring forward all the proof he 
can in support of his argument ; and I hope he will ad- 
vance something that deserves the name of testimony, 
which he certainly may do if it be in the scriptures, and 
then I will believe it: for I assure you I would not for my 
life deceive myself, nor for worlds would I be a deceiver 
of others, in things relating to their eternal peace. Let 
him, then, convince me, if I be in error, and most gladly 
will I embrace what my soul thirsteth after, the truth. 
Oli, yes ! if true: I would, I must, believe it,* for who 
can resist the omnipotent Jehovah ? But for your sake, for 
all our sakes, fop the sake of our wives, our children, our 
friends, I should be sorry if the doctrine of my opponent 
can be proved true. Yet, on the supposition it may be 
true, if he can convince me that I am in error, and that it 
is necessary for me to believe his doctrine, to save me 
from the eternal and endless misery of which he speaks, 
I will acknowledge him my best friend ; and will cherish 
in my heart for ever the strongest principles of gratitude 
towards him : but to do this he must prove it from the 
scriptures. Give us the law and the testimony ; and if he 
fail to do so, I hope to convince you of the truth of the glo- 
rious doctrine of life and immortality to a sinful world 
which are contained in them, and which I now believe; 
but if he can convince me that his doctrine is true, we shall 
need no further discussion on the second part of the pro- 
position ; and I will lend him my aid, to convince you al- 
so of its truth, or rather of the supposed truth of his part 
of the proposition, which I am now, by no means, willing 
to admit. 

lis o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — According to the rules of discussion, 
given to each party, each has a right to his own way in 
order to prove his part of the proposition true. I, for 
my part, wish to come at the truth in a plain and honest 
way, without any prevarication or quibbling. My oppo- 
nent has done little else for the last half hour than to make 



3& THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

an incessant call upon me to prove the doctrine which i 
hold from the scriptures. Why does he do this ? when I 
can produce sufficient evidence to prove that he does not 
believe the scriptures to he inspired. In his Testament 
he points out a number of disputed books, " Concerning 
which," he says, " Dr. Lardner says, that they should 
be allowed to be publicly read in Christian assemblies, 
for the edification of the people ; but not to be alledged as 
affording alone sufficient proof of any doctrine." And the 
books which bear most pointedly upon the doctrine for 
which I contend, are the very books to which they object; 
and because some of the truths contained in these books are 
not mentioned in the others, which they acknowledge gen- 
uine, they will not receive them, which is rather remark- 
able; as though Paul's epistles, written in Rome, are not 
to be received here, because a corresponding epistle was 
not written in Philadelphia. 

The following books, which are received by every 
christian as genuine, Dr. Lardner, and my opponent in 
unison with him, are pleased, in the plenitude of their 
learning, to call disputed books, as you will find in the 
preface of my opponent's newly translated Testament — 
"concerning which, Dr. Lardner says, that they should 
be allowed to be publicly read in christian assemblies, 
for the edification of the people, but not to be alledged as 
affording alone sufficient proof of any doctrine," viz : — 
"Epistle to the Hebrews; Epistle to James ; 2 Peter; 
2 John ; 3 John ; Jude, and Revelation." But if the 
scriptures be inspired, they must be infallibly true; and 
neither Dr. Lardner, nor any other infidel Socinian, can 
ever prove them false. In fact they want to have a great 
part of the New Testament struck out as false, becansc 
it does not just answer their purpose : and that this is 
not the opinion of Dr. Lardner alone, but that it is the 
opinion of my opponent also, I will now show you. On 
the epistle of Jude* he says, " This epistle is one of those 
books the genuineness of which was disputed in the primitive 
ages, and which, therefore, as Dr. Lardner well observes, 
" ought not to be alledged as affording, alone, sufficient 
proof of any doctrine." Now, from these very scriptures 
in which he does not believe, he calls upon me to prove 
my doctrine, and yet botli he and Dr. Lardner will not 
believe the truths contained in these books, because they 
are pleased to say the other books are silent on the sub- 
ject, and do not correspond with them, although all but 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. S3 

Deists, and Infidels, and Unitarians, believe them to be 
inspired ! We believe that the word of God cannot he 
false; and wherever I find it, it is the same to me — I 
receive it with reverence and gratitude. But we are not 
disposed to admit that the scriptures do not correspond ; 
we find the truths in which we believe, are maintained in 
all the writings of the Old and New Testaments. They 
all bear testimony to the same important facts ; hut the 
scriptures should not be twisted and turned to answer a 
particular purpose ; they should be rightly interpreted. 
Solomon says, " A wise man will hear, and will increase 
learning ; and a man of understanding shall attain unto 
wise counsels — to understand a proverb, and the interpre- 
tation — the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. — 
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
fools despise wisdoin and instruction." Prov. i. 6. 

I think it now right to give you a specimen of a newly 
translated Testament, by one Abner Kneeland. The 
sixth verse of the Epistle of Jude, "And the messen- 
gers who kept not their first state, but left their own 
habitation, he hath reserved in unseen chains, under 
darkness, to the judgment of the great day." Now com- 
pare this with the common version, and then you will 
perceive how quietly my very learned opponent can con- 
scientiously pervert the scriptures. He says, in his note, 
1.. " Or, « the messengers who watched not duly over their 
own principality, but deserted their proper habitation, 
he kept with unknown chains under darkness (punished 
them with judicial blindness of mind) to the judgment 
of a great day, i. e. when they were destroyed by a plague.* 
Alluding to the falsehood and punishment of the spies. 
Numb. xiv. See Simpson's Essay, p. 210." Here is a 
perversion of scripture nothing short of rank Deism. — 
Again, 2d, "Perhaps, however, the writer may refer to 
some fanciful account of a fall of angels contained in the 
apocrypha] book, which lay before him, without meaning 
to vouch for that fact any more than for the incident 
mentioned verse 9." Or, 3d, "He might introduce it 
merely to illustrate his argument. At any rate a fact so 
important is not to be admitted on such precarious evi- 
dence." Observe, the Apostle was quoting an apocryphal 
writing, or, some have supposed so ! Is this the way in 
which we are to interpret the holy scriptures ? by reject- 
ing such of them as do not suit our own purpose, and 
which prove a future state of eternal punishment, because 

5 



34 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Deists, and Infidels, and corrupt Unitarians, and Univer- 
salists, who go with them, do not wish it so? 

[Here Rev. Mr. Morse, one of the board of moderators, 
rose, and observed, that, with the concurrence of another 
of the board, (the Rev. Mr. Hogan, it is presumed,) he 
was under the necessity of calling the speaker to order, 
as it was conceived by them, that slandering Deists, and 
corrupt Unitarians, and Universalists, was out of order, 
and had nothing to do with the subject, as slander is not 
to be taken for argument.] 

Mr. M'Calla resumed — Brethren, I have been told te 
keep order. I was not aware that I had infringed the 
rules of order by declaring the truth. 1 am also accused 
of calling them corrupt- If this gives so much offence, 
and wounds their feelings so keenly, I shall endeavour, 
in future, to keep clear of using this offensive word, cor- 
rupt, as I feel no disposition to hurt the feelings of even 
Deists, nor of any connected with them. But to return. 
The argument had advanced to this stage. I was endea- 
vouring to prove, from the attributes of God, that the doc- 
trine of the absolute and eternal punishment of the wicked 
is true, and observe that the milder attributes of God, i. e. 
his mercy, his love, and grace, were infinite; because God 
is an infinite being, yet they are, in a certain sense, more 
limited than the creation ; for example, our sun illumines 
the whole universe, yet while our hemisphere enjoys the 
light, the other is involved in darkness ; and while the in- 
habitants of one pole have continued day, the inhabitants 
of its opposite are involved in perpetual night; so is the 
plan of grace. And here you will notice that I differ very 
materially from my opponent, who would have you believe 
that there is no necessity of grace for the salvation of fal- 
len man. 

The plan of grace which we receive, and bless God for, 
is revealed to us in the sacred oracles of divine truth ; — 
that we are saved by the grace of God, by the precious 
hlood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Does the scriptures tell 
us that Abraham was justified by works? "For what saith 
the scripture ? Abraham believed God and it was count- 
ed unto him for righteousness. Now, to him that worketh 
is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt ; but to 
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth 
the ungodly ; his faith is counted for righteousness : — 
even as David also described the blessedness of the man 
unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works : 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 35 

Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, 
and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom 
the Lord will not impute sin." Rom. iv. 3 — 9. Here, 
then, we see that the plan of grace is not of works, as the 
cold phlegmatic moralist asserts ; hut as it is said, Ephe- 
sians ii. 8, 9, " For by grace are ye saved, through faith, 
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God : not of 
works lest any man should boast." Is the doctrine of 
works then the plan of grace made known to us in the 
scriptures? I have been induced to notice this plan of 
grace, the more particularly because my opponent asked 
this question, " What need have we of grace ?" How 
natural it is for a man, who refuses to receive the word 
of God, and asserts his unbelief in the scriptures, to ask 
such questions ! We may clearly infer from what I have 
shown you, that some will be happy and some miserable 
to all eternity. "By grace are ye saved through faith, 
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." But 
this whole blessed plan of the grace of God is entirely an- 
nihilated by the Universalist scheme. This plan of grace 
clearly points out that some are partakers of it, and oth- 
ers are not ; for our Lord, according to the apostle John, 
says, (To them who are to be partakers of this grace, not 
to any others), " I am the resurrection, and the life, he 
that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he 
live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall 
never die. Believest thou this?" John xi. 25, 26. Here 
he was evidently speaking of the second death, intimating 
that those who did believe, should be the subjects of eter- 
nal life and happiness, and should not taste of the second 
death ; and that those who did not believe, should die the 
second death, and would be tormented forever. He could 
not here allude to the life of the body, for all must die a 
natural death ; but he meant that spiritual life which he 
would give to those who believed. In another place this 
grace is represented to us by justification and sanctifica- 
tion, as in 1 John, i. 7, u But if we walk in the ligh-, as 
he is in the light, we have fellowship one w 7 ith another, 
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from 
all sin." And, again, v. 9, " If we confess our sins, he 
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us 
from all unrighteousness," which is communicated unto 
us by the Holy Ghost. " The spirit itself beareth witness 
with our spirit that we are the children of God." Rom. 
viii. 13. Whom the children of this world cannot receive^ 



56 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

that is, sinners cannot, who are in the power of sin and 
death, but believers receive him because they know him. 
As in John xiv. 16, «* And I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with 
you forever : even the spirit of truth ; whom the world 
cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth 
him : but ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you, and 
shall be in you." And in 1 Cor. ii, 10, "But God hath 
revealed them unto us by his Spirit : for the Spirit search- 
eth all things, yea, the deep things of God." Also, John 
xvi. IS, 14, " Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is 
come, he will guide you into all truth : for he shall not 
speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall 
he speak : and he will show you things to come. He shall 
glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show 
it unto you." Now compare this with Markxiii. 19, 20, 
and see how differently he speaks of the wicked : " For 
in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the 
beginning of the creation, which God created, unto this 
time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had 
shortened those days, no flesh could be saved : but for the 
elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the 
days." Here is put, beyond a doubt, the different states 
of the righteous and the wicked in a future world. The 
blessings of the righteous are distinctly pointed out, and 
also the punishment of the wicked, in such a manner that 
it cannot (except it he wilfully) be misunderstood. Again, 
in Matt. xxv. 31, " When the son of man shall come in 
his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he 
sit upon the throne of his glory." Verse 34, " Then shall 
he say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of 
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world." Here is the blessed state of the 
righteous clearly set forth, that they are to inherit the 
kingdom and partake of his glory. But does he say the 
wicked are to do so? No : but the very reverse. Now 
observe what he says to the wicked, that is, all unbe- 
lievers : verse 41, " Then shall he say also unto them on 
the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels :" and v. 46, 
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment : 
but the righteous into life eternal." Now, how does this 
agree with my opponent's doctrine? That for our trans- 
gressions we received our full punishment in this life, and 
that at the second coming of our Lord all are to be alike, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. o? 

all are to go to heaven together ? An observation made by 
my opponent near the end of his remarks, requires some 
consideration. He tells yon, that the wicked are punished 
in this life in proportion to their transgressions, in direct 
opposition to what you have just heard as the sacred truths 
contained in the scriptures, and in opposition to the very 
evidence of our senses, for we, see the wicked flourish and 
prosper in the, world, while the righteous are the objects 
of persecution, disgrace, and poverty ; and it is a well 
known fact, both in natural and revealed religion, that 
men are not punished in this world in proportion to their 
crimes. Who does not know this ? You all must be fully 
sensible of it; and what saith the scriptures on this sub- 
ject? We find that good man Job, who was perfect and 
upright before the Lord, one who feared God and eschewed 
evil, complains that this was the case in his day, and 
surely it is so in ours. He says, chapter xxx. 1, " But 
now they that are younger than I, have me in derision, 
whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the 
dogs of my flock." And the good Asaph says, Ps. lxxiii. 
3 — 8, " For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the 
prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their 
death ; but their strength is firm. They are not in trou- 
ble as other men ; neither are they plagued like other men. 
Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain ; vio- 
lence covereth them as a garment. Their eyes stand out 
with fatness : they have more than heart could wish. — 
They are corrupt." I beg their pardon, (laugh) I told 
them I would not slander them, nor call them corrupt any 
more ; but if I did say that infidels and Universalists were 
more prosperous than others, I beg their pardon, I did but 
use the words of the good Asaph, who was regretting how r 
wretched his condition was, compared to that of the wicked 
in this life, but he found how it was, when he went into the 
sanctuary, and saw what a dreadful end awaited them ; 
for, he says, verse 17, 18, " Until I went into the sanctu- 
ary of God, then understood I their end. Surely thou 
didst set them in slippery places: thou castest them down 
into destruction." 

While we are on this subject, you will also observe the 
manner in which it hath pleased God to make known to 
us the benefit to be obtained by faith. Eph. ii. 8, 9, 
" For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not 
of yourselves, it is the gift of God : Not of works, lest any 
man should boast." And in Mark, xvi. 15, 16, when 



38 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

our Lord sent out his disciples to preach his gospel, " he 
said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." Again he says unto them in Matt. xiii. 11, 12, 
" Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of 
the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For 
whomsoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have 
more abundance : but whosoever hath not, from him shall 
be taken away even that he hath ;" and v. 15, " For this 
people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull 
of hearing, and their eyes they have closed ; lest at any 
time they should see with their eyes and hear with their 
ears, and should understand with their heart, and should 
be converted and I should heal them." — Here he declares 
plainly that some are to know the things and some are not, 
some are to be healed and some are not to be converted 
lest he should heal them. But my opponent says, they 
shall all be saved, they shall all be converted and healed, 
and, finally, the wicked who die in their sins shall enjoy 
the same happiness as the righteous : both he that believes 
and he that believes not, will be equally rewarded with 
the blessings contained in the gospel. Now you may be- 
lieve my opponent or the scriptures, which you please. I, 
for my own part, will say with Paul, Rom. iii. 4, " Let 
God be true and every man a liar." But, perhaps, my 
opponent may try to get over this by saying the wicked 
will repent after death ; but how will he reconcile that 
with the scriptures ? which saith, Eccles. ix. 10, "For 
there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, 
in the grave, whither thou goest." Again, Ps. vi. 5, 
" For in death there is no remembrance of thee : in the 
grave who shall give thee thanks ?" No, my friends, there 
is no repentance in the grave, we must repent here, before 
we go; there will be no repenting afterwards. For they 
who do not, will be like the servant mentioned by our Lord 
in Luke xii. 45, who said in his heart, " my lord delayeth 
his coming: and shall begin to beat the men servants, and 
maidens, and to eat and to drink and be drunken : The 
lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh 
not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and 
will cut him asunder and appoint him his portion ;" — with 
whom ? With believers ? No : but with unbelievers. — Yes 
they shall have their portion with those who on earth, des- 
pise, or set at nought, as my opponent does, the attributes 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 39 

of justice and judgment, holiness and truth. [Interrupt- 
ed by the moderators, but in so low a tone of voice that the 
words were not distinctly heard in the gallery.] 

Mr. M'Calla — If I have been severe upon my opponent, 
or upon any one else, it is against my will. The portion 
of severity that I have exercised towards them, has been 
drawn from me by the frequent interruptions which I have 
met with. They have burst from me entirely involunta- 
rily, as I have no wish or desire to hurt the feelings of any 
individual in existence; therefore I hope they will let me 
pursue my regular course without any interrruption, as I 
intend they shall pursue theirs, and then they may escape 
those harsh expressions which unintentionally have es- 
caped me. 

We will see how my opponent's doctrine agrees with the 
attributes of God ; since there is no repentance in the 
grave, and he says there is no need of grace to save us. 

Let us see if the justice of God requires the sinner to be 
released from the penalty due for the transgression of the 
law, until the debt is paid. God says, Ezekiel xviii. 20, 
" The soul that sinneth it shall die." — I have already 
shown you that this is not a temporal death, but the spi- 
ritual or second death. Again, v. 26, " When a righ- 
teous manturneth away from his righteousness, and com- 
mitteth iniquity, and dieth in them ; for his iniquity that 
he hath done he shall die." Now no man in his senses 
will pretend to tell you that this only means a temporal 
death, you might, with as much propriety, say, he shall 
die, and after he is dead he shall die again, and yet this 
may he but one death. Still my opponent will tell you, it 
is all temporal. Does not the apostle Paul in his epistle 
to the Romans, ii. 6, say, (i That according to the righ- 
teous judgment of God, who will render to every man ac- 
cording to his deeds : To them who by patient continu- 
ance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and im- 
mortality, eternal life ?" Those who seek for it ; but how 
will they obtain this salvation who reject the way, the on- 
ly way pointed out whereby they may obtain it ? They 
cannot : for man is unable to pay the enormous load of 
debt due by him to a violated law ; and the justice of God 
requires it either to be paid by him, or by a substitute. 
"How then shall they escape if they neglect so great a 
salvation ?" For the eternal Jehovah had decreed before 
all worlds the absolute eternal punishment of those who 
are so hardened and impenitent that they will not accept 



40 THEOLOGICAL BISCUSSION. 

of this glorious salvation held out to them. But the time 
is coming when the Lord shall avenge his saints who are 
on the earth ; upon those who reject him and despise his 
servants : as in Rev. vi. 9, " And I saw under the altar 
the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and 
for the testimony which they held : And they cried with 
a loud voice, How long, Lord, holy and true, dost thou 
not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the 
earth." Here they call upon God the most holy and true, 
unto whom they are praying that he would pour out his 
vengeance on the enemies of his truth. This my oppo- 
nent would term cruelty. Again you will find how differ- 
ently the angel spoke of an offended and just God, to what 
my opponent does, Rev. xvi. 4, "And the third angel 
poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters, 
and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the wa- 
ters say, Thou art righteous, Lord, which art, and wast, 
and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. For they 
have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast 
given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. And I 
heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God 
Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments." Here 
God is termed righteous, and worthy, and just, for hav- 
ing inflicted vengeance on his enemies, the wicked, no mat- 
ter what their clergy may say to the contrary. And in 
Rev. xix. 1, "And after these things T heard a great 
voice of much people in heaven, saying Alleluia : Salva- 
tion, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord 
our God : For true and righteous are his judgments : For 
he hath judged the great whore which did corrupt" — (if 
I use the word corrupt when it is used in the scriptures I 
hope I shall not be called to order for it. Such expres- 
sions surely are allowable to be applied to the wicked 
when taken from the scriptures) "which did corrupt the 
earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of 
his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. 
And the smoke rose up for ever and ever." 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 41 



TUESDAY AFTERNOON. 

4 o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — The time has now arrived in which we 
have agreed to resume the discussion of one of the most im- 
portant subjects which has ever occupied the attention of 
the human mind. Its importance was stated hy my oppo- 
nent and acknowledged by me in the morning, and you have 
borne testimony to the fact hy assembling this afternoon 
in increased numbers ; — my only regret is, that the parties 
by whom the subject is discussed are not more competent 
to do it that justice it deserves. In it our eternal interest 
is involved ; for the question which we are now, in our 
own minds, called upon to decide, is no less than Wheth- 
er God has doomed the wicked to remediless woe and mi- 
sery ? or, in the words of the proposition, " Is the punish- 
ment of the wicked absolutely eternal F* — If this proposi- 
tion be true, you, my hearers, as well as your speakers, 
are involved in it ; for can we say that we are not wick- 
ed ? If we were to say this, our own mouths would con- 
demn us. 

It seems from the manner in which the discussion has 
hitherto progressed, that my opponent would wish to take 
for granted that man, universally, deserves eternal misery 
at the hand of his creator. This he has declared in so 
many words : — now, my hearers, you have only the as 
sertion of my opponent for the truth of this statement, and 
though he has so frequently been called upon to show the 
Law of God which requires the eternal punishment of the 
transgressor — to show the testimony which announces that 
this punishment will be inflicted upon him as the penalty 
of the law — to point out to us the Book, the Chapter, and 
the Verse, where this law and this testimony are recorded, 
yet, he has not even attempted to do so ; hut instead of do- 
ing this, he comes forward before you, to prove this all- 
important doctrine infer entially or by implication ; — from 
the attributes of the Deity being opposed to the happiness of 
the sinner — from the impossibility of otherwise reconcil- 
ing some circumstances which have taken place in the 
providence of God, as recorded in the scriptures, &c. &c. 
— and lastly from direct testimony, which,, however, he 
has not as yet adduced. 

6 



42 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

I am sorry to say, as I wish in no degree to derogate 
from the talents or to impeach the motives of my opponent, 
but wish the first had been superior, and I presume the 
latter to be good ; yet, I am sorry that truth constrains 
me to declare, I have met with more powerful evidence, 
brought in favour of eternal misery, by laymen, even by 
young mechanics, at the Commissioner's Hall in the North- 
ern Liberties, than I have heard this morning from my 
opponent. — I feel sorry that a reverend gentleman should 
have come all the way from Kentucky to teach the citi- 
zens of Philadelphia theology, without being possessed of 
abilities better adapted to the task. 

Instead of coming to the point, and showing to us the 
law of God against which the sinner has transgressed, 
and which demands his eternal misery, the whole aim of 
my opponent has been to throw out insinuations, inuen- 
does and imprecations against the writings of your hum- 
ble speaker. — Now I would ask, what has the writings of 
your speaker to do with the question before us for discus- 
sion ? Are they to decide the question ? Suppose it should 
be found that they do contain errors, will that disprove 
the testimony of the holy scriptures ? My opponent has 
endeavoured, also, to make some impression upon his au- 
dience by unfavourable, and I must say, uncandid re- 
marks, in relation to the translation of the New Testament, 
recently published by your speaker; he has endeavoured, 
from some notes contained in that translation, to show 
that your speaker is an unbeliever in the Word of God as 
revealed in the scriptures. This appeared to me to be so 
very uncandid, that I was constrained to interrupt my op- 
ponent at the time ; and I have now to show you that all 
the notes to which he referred, and partly read in your 
hearing, are quotations marked by inverted commas, and 
with references to the authors from whom they were co- 
pied. Now, is it proper to produce the expressions con- 
tained in such notes, as my language? — I can only say, 
that such misrepresentations go to weaken his own cause, 
and to strengthen mine. 

My opponent finished his morning's address by refer- 
ring to one passage of scripture on which he seems to rest 
his doctrine with much confidence. This passage is con- 
tained in the hook of Revelation, the sixth chapter, and 
the tenth verse, " And they cried with a loud voice, say- 
ing, How long, Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge 
and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ?'* 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 43 

After this, the revelator goes on to speak, in connexion, of 
the judgments of God, — of a river whose water should he 
turned into blood, and then in chap, xvi, verse 6, we have 
this declaration, ** They have shed the blood of saints and 
prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink ; for 
they are worthy." Here is the judgment — here is the 
vengeance called for by the saints; now, I ask my oppo- 
nent whether the wicked will drink blood in a future 
world ? — The language made use of by the revelator is 
figurative and not literally descriptive of historical occur- 
rences ; — but observe that this judgment, whatever it may 
be, was to be poured out on " them that dwell upon the 
earth," and was not to be reserved until a future world. 

Were I disposed to follow my opponent in all his wind- 
ings — the longer we were to continue the discussion, the 
farther we should find ourselves from the point in dispute, 
and finally would lose our subject in a mass of extrane- 
ous matter. — I have already repeatedly called upon my 
opponent to exhibit the law and the testimony in proof of 
the first part of the proposition, viz : of the absolute eter- 
nity of the punishment of the wicked, and as frequently as 
I have called for them has he declined attempting to ad- 
duce them. He has his mind marked out in a particular 
track ; for, having anticipated, as he supposed, the ground 
which would be occupied by his opponent, he had his mat- 
ter ready cut and dried, to meet him; but being opposed by 
arguments of which he had no previous idea, he has been 
completely thrown out : nevertheless, as his matter has 
been prepared, he persists in giving it to you, rather than 
meet me on the ground to which I invite him. 

I am sure that on my own part, this discussion has been 
wholly unsolicited. The first letter in relation to it came 
from my opponent, and was received when I was in New- 
York ; but, though I never solicited the discussion, yet I 
never for a moment declined it. — This is not the first time, 
nor will it probably be the last, I have been brought in 
contact with the reverend clergy who oppose the unlimi- 
ted grace, mercy, and goodness of God. — If, therefore, my 
opponent has any regard for his own reputation, for the 
cause in which he is engaged, or for the clergy of whom 
he constitutes one, he will now come forward with the 
strongest possible arguments that it may be in his power 
to adduce in favour of the eternal misery of sinners. If 
he does not do this, your opinion must be that he has no 
positive evidence in his favour. Would it not, then, be 



44 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

more candid for him to acknowledge that he cannot find 
either the law or testimony which demands such punish- 
ment, and come to the discussion of the second member of 
the proposition, " Is sin only a temporal punishment in 
this world for the good of the sinner, to be succeeded by 
eternal happiness after death ?" By so doing he would put 
the labouring oar in the hand of your humble speaker — he 
would then put it on me to prove that the punishment of 
the sinner is only temporal and salutary, to be succeeded 
by his repentance and never ending happiness. INow if 
he wishes to give me a hard task, as he would suppose it, 
why does he not pursue this course. — I must now insist 
upon keeping him to the first point contained in the pro- 
position, until he shall either prove it true, or acknowledge 
his inability to do so, or else give up the position altogether; 
then will I from the law and the testimony prove that the 
punishment of the wicked is temporal, for their good, and 
to be succeeded by eternal happiness hereafter — mark, I 
do not say immediate happiness, as my opponent insinua- 
ted in the morning, when he declared that I believed the 
sinful inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had entered 
heaven, while righteous Lot was continued a sufferer in 
this world : such is not my opinion, and if my opponent 
imagines such will be the ground I shall assume, he has 
been deluded by the chimera of his own imagination. 

As I have not yet any tiling to consider as an argument 
in favour of the first part of the proposition, and as I do 
not wish to say that I have nothing to occupy my portion 
of the time, I will just intimate the ground that I shall 
take in defending the truth of the second member of the 
proposition, in order that I may prepare my opponent for 
what he is to expect ; as. from the specimen which he has 
already given us of his knowledge of the arguments and 
scriptural evidence employed by Universalists, it may be 
probable he needs this preparation. 

When I come to defend my doctrine, I will contend, as 
the scriptures declare, that the righteous — (he has told you 
that 1 say the righteous will be rewarded in another world) 
that " the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, 
much more the wicked and the sinner." See Proverbs xi. 
31. Is this true? In confirmation we are told " In keeping 
the commandments," (not/or keeping the commandments) 
"there is great reward." Psal. xix. 11. And, again, 
46 Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little 
ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, 



THEOLOGICAL. DISCUSSION. 45 

verily, I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. 5 ' 
Matt. x. A-Z. Where shall he be rewarded ? He shall be 
recompensed in the earth; so says the Bible; and if 1 am 
called infidel because I believe in what the Bible declares 
to be truth, I glory in the appellation. The same testi- 
mony informs us that " God is good unto all, and his ten- 
der mercies are over all his works." Ps. xlv. 9. Being 
good unto all are we not to infer that all his dispensations 
toward them are good ? Does he then not punish them for 
their good ? Being good inherently, certainly whatever 
proceeds from him must be good, and designed finally to 
end in the good of all his creatures. Is punishment the 
work of God ? It is said, to he sure, to be his strange 
work : " For the Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, 
he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may 
do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, 
his stransre act." Isa. xxviii. 21. But, nevertheless it is 
still his work. 

Speaking of David, God says, " If his children forsake 
my law, and walk not in my judgments, if they break 
my statutes, and keep not my commandments, then will I 
visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity 
with stripes, nevertheless my loving kindness will I not 
utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail." 
Ps. lxxxix. SO — 34. You need not expect to escape pun- 
ishment if you commit sin, but though God afflict the sin- 
ner yet he does it in mercy, for " Whom the Lord loveth 
he chasteneth." Heb. xii. 6. And (i What son is he whom 
the father chasteneth not ;" v. 7. Now, we are willing to 
allow that *• no chastisement for the present seemeth to 
he joyous, but grevious ; nevertheless, afterward it yield- 
eth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which 
are exercised thereby." v. 11. And if we be <* without 
chastisement whereof all are jwrtakers, then are we bas- 
tards and not sons ;" v. 8. 

I have already stated that it was not my intention to 
discuss the second part of the proposition, until we had 
disposed of the first, but there was nothing else for me to 
do, as I had no arguments to answer on the opposite side 
of the question, than to show to you the nature of that 
evidence, by which the second part of the proposition 
will be supported, when we conceive it our duty to take 
it up. 

There is one circumstance which I cannot avoid taking 
the liberty to mention at this time, it appeared somewhat 



46 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

surprising to me, considering the importance of the sub- 
ject, that my opponent should state to you this morning, 
that although a member of a certain society, and a teach- 
er, who maintains the doctrine of endless misery, yet that 
that society is not with him in the discussion ; neither are 
the clergy of the denomination to which he belongs ; but 
that he stands alone. Now, if they thought he would come 
off victorious, why did they not come forward? — why did 
they, to the eve of the discussion, refuse him their coun- 
tenance even as his moderator. [Here the speaker was 
interrupted by Mr. Kennedy, one of the bench, who con- 
tradicted something the speaker had asserted, but we did 
not distinctly hear what he said.] If so, it is very well, 
I had the statement, in regard to the opposition of the 
clergy to this discussion, from my opponent's own lips, and 
had every reason therefore to believe it correct. My 
hearers must perceive the reason why I go into this extra- 
neous matter. — What shall I do ? — say nothing ? If my 
opponent will give me any thing better to talk about I 
will not wander. The moment he gives me what he con- 
siders to be the law and the testimony upon which he pre- 
dicates the denunciation of endless misery to the sinner, I 
will consider it and see whether it will prove the truth of 
that part of the proposition he has pledged himself to sup- 
port — and if it should be found to prove it, not only your 
speaker, but you, my hearers, are bound to submit — we 
must either lay aside the testimony of God, or we have 
nothing to do out to bow in obedience to it. I call on my 
opponent, therefore — I earnestly entreat him to show one 
law that requires the eternal misery of the sinner — and 
unless he can, he may say what he pleases, wander where 
he will — I shall not attempt to follow him. 

4i o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — In the discussion, this morning, I read 
several quotations from different books written by my op- 
ponent, for which I have been accused of misrepresenta- 
tion, and of having given to them a false colouring ; I 
should be sorry to have done any thing worthy of such a 
charge. I said, Dr. Lardner declares of certain epistles, 
that " they should not be allowed to be publickly read in 
christian assemblies;" that Mr. Kneeland has inserted 
this in his translation of the New Testament, and declares 
that this is well observed by Dr. Lardner. Is this not fair- 
ly quoted? If not, I shall be at a loss, in future, how to 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 47 

make any quotation without first submitting them to my 
opponent for his approbation. I now contend, that, al- 
though the words originally may not be his, yet, by his 
remarking, " it is well observed," &c. they become 
his own words ; and you all had evidence, this morning, 
that they contain his sentiments. As to his observation in 
relation to my having come all the way from Kentucky, 
to teach the Philadelphians theology, and that he had heard 
stronger arguments from laymen, in this city, than from 
a divine from Kentucky ; I acknowledge that I may not 
possess the talents of many laymen — [Here he was inter- 
rupted by the Rev. Mr. Morse, to correct a mis-state- 
ment. — He observed, " I wish no interruption."] My op- 
ponent has said that I gave the challenge for this discus- 
sion, and that I put it on paper ; I shall let this pass 
without notice. The challenge was given from the pulpit 
by my opponent, in his sermons, as I have been credibly 
informed ; and he has cajoled his deluded followers, by 
telling them that it was not answered because the clergy 
could not do it. It is also contained in his book, which I 
will now convince you of. In the second edition of his Lec- 
tures, in a note, page 198, he says, " This lecture is the 
substance of two discourses which w r ere delivered at Lang- 
don, N. H. July 22, 1805, and were immediately printed, 
and remain to this day unanswered. The substance of 
tho^e discourses was again published, in a different form, 
in the state ofNewYork,in 1816; and at each publication 
the learned clergy have been respectfully called upon to 
show wherein those statements are incorrect." Thus has 
he been challenging, and challenging for near twenty 
years, until he got out of breath. [Loud clapping, then 
hissing,] I did not come here, my friends, to establish 
my own opinions, but to convince you of the truth of the 
doctrine preached by our Lord Jesus Christ ; not to obtain 
my own will as a preacher, but to do the will of my God 
and master Jesus Christ ; for in his sight my gold be- 
comes dross, not having on my own righteousness, but the 
righteousness which is of God, by faith. The challenges 
which he has given to the world, I must believe, because 
I have heard of them from both his friends and opposers. — ■ 
(You heard him this morning make one yourselves, with 
your own ears ;) accordingly, he makes out in the pre- 
face to his second edition, that his challenge has been be- 
fore the world from ten to twenty years, and that the 
reason it has never been answered, is, because we are^ 



48 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

afraid to attempt it, knowing that we are all wrong j— 
his eighth, and as he says, his most important lecture, has 
been full twenty years abroad ; it is therefore time it was 
answered, if it can be; but he says " This is considered 
as a silent acknowledgement, that in the opinion of the 
clergy generally, the work is unanswerable." Thus, he 
says, by our not having accepted his challenge, we tacitly 
acknowledge he is correct, and that the clergy are not 
able to answer it. And yet, when we break our silence, 
he says we come all the way from Kentucky to teach 
Philadelphians theology. He says — 

[Here he was interrupted by the Rev, Mr. Morse, who 
said he regretted he was under the necessity of interrupting 
the speaker, hut, as he had advanced a statement which 
was not true, it was his duty to correct it. — Mr. M i Calla 
here interrupted the speaker, by observing, that he did not 
consider it fair for one Universalist to assist another against 
him; that if Mr. Kneeland was unable to defend his doc- 
trine, instead of getting others to do it for him, he had better 
give it up, and acknowledge himself in error. Mr. Morse — 
'Tis a false (Both speaking together.) Mr. M* Cal- 
la — I have no objeciion to his bringing half a dozen per- 
sons to assist him, if he will only allow me the privilege of 
my half hour without interruption ; J have no objection to 
take his second next. (Mr. Morse sat down.) Mr. Ji* Cal- 
la resumed the thread of his argument, and observed] My 
opponent states in his book that he has publicly appealed 
to all the clergy, to show that what he has therein stated 
is incorrect ; and because they have not attempted to con- 
trovert his false statements, he declares it is because we 
cannot; and yet when I come all the way from Kentucky 
with no more talents than a Philadelphia layman, he wants 
to make it appear that he only intended it to be answered in. 
print, and denies altogether that he ever gave a public chal- 
lenge to a discussion; and did he not, this day, in your hear- 
ing, call upon any one present to contradict him? Is not that 
a challenge, and a public one too ? And to this very dis- 
cussion ? But he may twist and turn expressions, and ex- 
plain away, till it does not mean a discussion at all. He 
has called upon any one, and in the most general manner, 
to dispute with him, observing, "the more learned the 
better:" of this I took some notice in my iast letter, and 
offered myself, because no one else did. as modestly as a 
Kentuckian could offer himself, and he denied the chal- 
lenge. Perhaps he was a little uneasy that even one with 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 49 

only the humble pretensions of a layman should come for- 
ward to oppose his system of infidelity and falsehood ! He 
had long' been glorying in himself, and assuring his fol- 
lowers that none were willing or able to contradict him : 
I now think myself called on in providence to undertake 
to defend those truths which I openly profess and inward- 
ly believe to be the faith, as once delivered to the saints by 
Christ Jesus our Lord ; the more especially because none 
of the clergy, either because they thought it beneath their 
notice, or that they had heard nothing about it, came for- 
ward to confute it. 

My opponent says he is at a loss to consume his thirty 
minutes, and yet he continues saying something to the end 
of his time. If he has so little to say, why does he not do 
as an antagonist of mine once did on a former occasion. 
Let my present opponent speak but five minutes, and give 
me the remainder of the time, and I will come to the point 
much sooner. I had already attempted to prove from the 
attributes of God, according to my plain, rough way, not 
as a learned theologian, like my opponent ; but as a plain 
Kentucky layman would attempt it, that, there is a place 
of absolute and eternal punishment for the proud and all 
those who do wickedly. I endeavoured to show that the 
attributes of God required it, and quoted, for this purpose, 
Rev. xix. 1, "And after these things I heard a great voice 
of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia, Salvation and 
Glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord our God: for 
true and righteous are his judgments : for he hath judged 
the great whore which did corrupt the earth with her for- 
nications, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at 
her hands ; and again they said, Alleluia ! and her smoke 
rose up for ever and ever." These things are said to be 
done by our God, because he is righteous, and holy, and 
true in his judgments, in opposition to the opinion of those 
Who say he is not righteous ; and, that he takes signal 
vengeance on those infidels who do not believe in the 
Lord Jesus Christ, even upon those who have not passed 
from death unto life ; upon those who know not what it is 
to be born again. The same thing is asserted by the 
apostle, in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, i. 6 to 
10, " Seeing it is a righteous thing with God (a righteous 
thing you will observe) to recompence tribulation to them 
that trouble you — (i. e. his saints.) And to you who are 
troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be reveal- 
ed from heaven with his mighty angels ; (observe* it is the 

7 



50 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Lord Jesus of whom Paul is speaking ;) in flaming fire 
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that 
obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall 
be punished with everlasting destruction from the pre- 
sence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. (You 
are here told that the righteousness of God requires that 
he should take vengeance on the wicked, and that he should 
punish them with everlasting destruction.) When he 
shall come to he glorified in his saints, and to be admired 
in all them that believe (because our testimony among you 
was believed) in that day." There is a time coming, 
when God shall be admired by his saints for his justice 
in punishing the wicked with everlasting punishment; 
and even devils, and the objects of this punishment, shall 
acknowledge him just in inflicting it. We have given se- 
veral plain passages, which prove, beyond the possibility 
of contradiction the awful state of the wicked, and that 
the justice of God requires their absolutely eternal punish- 
ment, because he is holy and true, and have shown the 
close connexion between the attributes of justice and holi- 
ness. Again, Rev. xiv. 9, to the end. I will now pro^ 
ceed to notice the nature of sin. Many passages tend to 
show the heinousness of sin, and call it exceedingly sinful. 
Thus St. Paul says, Romans vii. 13, " Was then that 
which w T as good made death unto me? God forbid. But 
sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by 
that which is good ; that sin by the commandment might 
become exceeding sinful.'* We find then that sin which 
my opponent calls a negation, a mere nothing, is declared 
to be exceedingly sinful. Paul says so. Yet my opponent 
makes very li.^ht of it, he says that that is nothing 
which the apostle considered so exceeding sinful he could 
not find a name strong enough to express his abhorrence 
of it ; — that it is only a negation. But I rather think my 
opponent is getting ashamed of what he has written.-—. 
He says, p. 195, " As the diseases of the body are mere 
privations of health, so the disorders of the mind are all 
merely negative, a lack or want of their contrary virtues, 
the same as darkness is nothing more than the absence or 
want of light. Hence ignorance, folly, injustice, hatred, 
cruelty, &c. are only the want of knowledge, wisdom, 
justice, love, mercy, &c." Thus we see that injustice, 
hatred, cruelty, are negative qualities, a mere nothing. — 
How contrary he and the apostle are in sentiment ! — how 
much at variance their doctrine ! According to my op- 



tfHEOLOGlCAi DISCUSSION. 51 

i>6hent, sin is nothing ! According to Paul, it is so sinful 
that he cannot find a name for it. He does not say sin is 
an exceeding nothing ! no, but exceedingly sinful. How 
different this to my opponent ! When any man becomes 
ashamed of his own book, we think it a pity it was ever 
printed. There is a passage in his book which contra- 
dicts the above, and we conceive that those who advocate 
and believe that men go to heaven in their sins, had better 
reflect upon the purity of heaven, which is represented in 
Rev. xxi. 22 — " And I saw no temple therein ; for the Lord 
God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And 
the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to 
shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, and the 
Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which 
are saved shall walk in the light of it ; and the kings of 
the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And 
the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day ; for there 
shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory 
and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no 
wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatso- 
ever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which 
are written in the Lamb's book of life/ 9 How does this 
agree with my opponent's doctrine? He says all shall 
go, whether they be sinners or not ! not considering what 
the law says by his prophets, Hab. i. 12, 13 — "Art thou 
not from everlasting, O Lord, my God ; my holy one? 
We shall not die. Lord, thou hast ordained them for 
judgment; and, mighty God, thou hast established 
them for correction. Thou art of purer eyes than to 
behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity." How- 
says my opponent, then, that the impure shall enter 
heaven? — and surely it does not require great purity to 
behold a vacuum, as my opponent has said sin is — a mere 
negation. Also, Paul says, in his epistle to the Hebrews, 
" But God cannot abide sin, and is of purer eyes than to 
behold sin and to look upon iniquity ; and also, Heb. xii. 
14, " Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without 
which no man shall see the Lord," Again — « Every 
transgression receiveth a just recompence of reward."— 
Heb. ii. 2. Having stated thus much in favour of the ar- 
guments to be drawn from the perfections of God, we will 
now take notice of the natural depravity of man, and of 
the utter helplessness of sinners to approach unto God, unless 
he be drawn by the cross of Christ. They are declared 
to be debtors to the law, as in Matthew xviii. A certain 



52 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

King made a reckoning with his servants, one of whom 
owed him ten thousand talents, but having nothing to pay, 
he frankly forgave him ; notwithstanding, in consequence 
of subsequent misconduct, he " delivered him over to the 
jailors, till he should pay all that was due him." 

This grace is declared to be so absolutely necessary, 
that it seems astonishing that man is so blind, and the 
human heart so callous as it is. It is said, John xv. 5, 
" Without me ye can do nothing." Romans viii. 7 — 
"The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not 
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So 
then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." This 
the apostle told us, that we might know that we should 
be kept at an eternal distance from God, unless we were 
prepared by the grace and spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ 
to please him : which we never could do without it ; nor 
are we told that all are made partakers of it ; for, it is 
said, Matt. vii. 14, "Enter ye in at the strait gate; for 
wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to 
destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Be- 
cause strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which 
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." How 
does this agree with the doctrine that all shall be finally 
saved ? " Beware of false prophets, which come to you 
in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening 
wolves !" Instead of all being saved, we find that many 
shall not be able to find it. Again — John viii. 21 — " Then 
said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall 
seek me, and shall die in your sins : whither I go, ye can- 
not come. Then said the Jews, will he kill himself?— 
because he saith, Whither I go ye cannot come?" How 
natural this to the carnal mind ! " And he said unto 
them, ye are from beneath ; I am from above : ye are of 
this world ; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto 
you that ye shall die in your sins ; for, if ye believe not 
that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." 

But I read according to the Universalist scheme, that 
those who die in their sins shall go and dwell with Christ 
— shall be where he is. What a difference between the 
two doctrines! Which will you believe? the word of 
God ? or the blind traditions of men ? Christ says, where 
I am ye cannot come if ye die in your sins. The Univer- 
salists say you can. Now, if they die in their sins do they 
repent afterwards ? No. The scripture saith, Isa. xviii. 
13, " The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot cele- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 53 

brate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for 
thy truth." Of course, it will be admitted by all, that 
the word here rendered pit, means the grave. So then 
they who die in their sins, cannot hope for the truth ; for 
his justice and truth have sealed them for an absolute and 
eternal punishment, and hell shall be their habitation, 
and devils their companions, forever. It is evident that 
hell is a place of darkness, and instead of being a place 
where they will pay off the debt and finally be liberated, 
it is a place where they continually increase their debt to 
all eternity ; increasing their wickedness as they increase 
in torment and misery ; as in 2 Peter ii. 4, " God spared 
not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and 
delivered into chains of darkness." The scriptures inva- 
riably represent that old serpent, the devil, as a real be- 
ing, and not an imaginary one, which is too evidently the 
fact, from his influence in the world : and though they are 
disposed to deny this, as they say sin is merely nothing, 
let them misrepresent the scriptures as they will, still they 
cannot make truth falsehood, and the scriptures always 
speak of him as a material and a real being. 

5 o'clock. 

Mr. ICneeland. — I sincerely regret, my friendly hearers, 
that after my having so kindly and so modestly pointed out 
an error of my opponent, (for I had no idea that the state- 
ment was an intentional misrepresentation on his part) that 
when he again addressed you he thought proper to reiterate 
the error with increased boldness, — not that it would, even 
if allowed to pass uncorrected, make any thing in favour of 
his cause, or against mine ; but as I thought he would be 
sorry even unintentionally to misstate facts, I corrected 
him at the time he made the statement, that he might not 
be under the mistake for even thirty minutes ; but as he 
has not thought proper to acknowledge himself to have 
been mistaken, it now becomes my duty to show where the 
error originated, and to correct it before you. 

My opponent read to you several notes from my trans- 
lation of the New Testament; one, which he very proper- 
ly noticed as a quotation, is from Dr. Lardner, giving the 
titles of such books as have been disputed, which he thinks 
" should be allowed to be publicly read in Christian as- 
semblies, for the edification of the people ; but are not to be 
alleged as affording alone sufficient proof of any doctrine." 
See Lard, Hist. Jlpo&t. and Evans;, vol. I. p. 30. — This 



54 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

will be found immediately after the Preface, page x. But 
my opponent observes that though this be a quotation, that 
the translator approves of it, and makes the note his own, 
by saying in a note to the epistle of Jude, page 389 of the 
Translation, — " This epistle is one of the books, the genu- 
ineness of which was disputed in the primitive ages, and 
which, therefore, as Dr. Lardner well observes, * ought 
not to be alledged, &c. ? " But had my opponent examin- 
ed the note with any degree of attention, he would have 
perceived that the fact is, the whole note is copied verba- 
tim from the improved version of the New Testament pub- 
lished in London, that it is marked with quotation points^ 
and with a reference to that work at the close of the note. 
The facts are similar in reference to the other notes he re- 
ferred to, (2 Pet. ii. 4, — Jude 6,) neither of them contain- 
ing a single word of my own. — If, therefore, there be any 
impropriety in the notes, their authors must be answera- 
ble for it; — nothing can be attributed to me, excepting 
that by inserting them in my translation I have aided in 
giving them a more extensive circulation. 

Whether, now 7 , the false statement thus made by my op- 
ponent, and after he was corrected, urged again with in- 
creased assurance, makes against him or me, it is for you, 
my hearers, to judge. 

I have, also, sincerely to regret that my opponent, in- 
stead of attempting to reply to my arguments, endeavours 
rather to take advantage of all that falls from my lips, 
that by low witticisms and sarcasms he may excite your 
laughter against his opponent, or obtain your plaudits for 
himself. — While I am speaking, I wish no plaudits from 
any part of my hearers, and I should be very sorry to hear 
a hiss. We come here to discuss an all-important ques- 
tion, and I must earnestly entreat of you, that whatever 
witticisms may be made use of by either speaker, that you 
will neither express your approbation by plaudits, nor 
your indignation by hisses. 

I had patiently waited during the whole of the last half 
hour to hear from my opponent some further testimony 
from the Word of God in support of his side of the propo- 
sition. I had hoped, after my earnest entreaties, he would 
have gone back and showed to us the Law of our Heaven- 
ly Father which requires the absolute eternal misery of 
sinners, but this he has not as yet attempted, and I am 
perfectly willing, until he does this, that all the arguments 
lie has endeavoured to adduce, inferentially and by impli- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 55 

cation, should pass by me, with all their weight on your 
minds, without attempting a reply to them. For if the 
Law of God cannot be shown to require the punishment 
contended for, all other reasoning is nugatory ; " To the 
law and to the testimony' 5 I once more, therefore, invite 
him. But there is one passage brought forward by my 
opponent upon which he appears to rest with much confi- 
dence, and which I think it proper cursorily to notice. — - 
The passage to which I refer, you will find in the Second 
Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, 1st chapter, seventh 
and tenth verses inclusive. "You who are troubled, rest 
with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from hea- 
ven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking ven- 
geance on them that know not God, and that obey not the 
gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with 
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
from the glory of his power ; when he shall come to be glo- 
rified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that be- 
lieve." That the trouble here spoken of, in the first part 
of the passage, took place upon the earth, will not, we be- 
lieve, be disputed by any one. — I have endeavoured to 
quote the passage correctly, and to give it, in reciting it 
to you, its full force. — Now, has my opponent used any 
kind of argument to prove that " the destruction from the 
presence of the Lord, &c." here referred to, is to take place 
in another and a future world, that is, after the general 
resurrection ? No, he has not. He thought, of course, it 
must be so, that you would understand it so, and, there- 
fore, he recited it without comment. But to be satisfied 
as to when the destruction spoken of by the apostle is to 
take place, we must attend to the scriptures in connexion. 

In the first place, it will be necessary to satisfy our- 
selves as to the time to which the scriptures allude, when 
they speak of the coming of Christ with his mighty angels, 
to take vengeance on those who know not God, and tore- 
ward every man according to his works, — and when we 
have ascertained this fact, the question is settled. 

It is reasonable to conclude that all the inspired penmen, 
when they use precisely the same language, invariably 
refer to the same time and to the same subject. — First, 
then, as to the time. Jesus says to his disciples, as re- 
corded by the Evangelist, Matthew, chap, xvi. 26, " What 
is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and 
lose his own soul ? or what shall a man give in exchange 
for his soul V 9 (The word here rendered soul, is rendered 



56 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

life in the verse immediately preceding.) <e For the Son 
of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his an- 
gels, and then shall he reward every man according to his 
works." Does this allude to the same time as is referred 
to in the passage in Thessalonians or not ? If he is com- 
ing to reward every man according to their works, is he 
not then coming to punish the wicked and to comfort his 
saints ; — to take vengeance on the ungodly, and to render 
happy those who obey the gospel ? — Now as to the time 
when this shall take place, observe the very next verse ; 
" Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here 
which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man 
coming in his kingdom." Now from this testimony what 
are we to conclude? either that some of those who were 
addressed by Christ are still alive, — have not tasted of 
death, or that Jesus has already come in his kingdom : 
and in confirmation of this, he declares, John xii. SI, 
"Now is the judgment of this world." In corroboration 
of the above statement, turn now to the gospel according 
to Mark, the last verse of the eighth chapter, in connec- 
tion with the first verse of the ninth. — It is always neces- 
sary to observe the connexion of different chapters, in or- 
der to come at the sense of the inspired writers, for very 
often those by whom the bible was divided into chapters 
and verses, for the conveniency of reference, have divided 
a subject so as to place one part of it in one chapter and 
the other in the following one. — It reads thus : " Whoso- 
ever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this 
adulterous and sinful generation," (our Lord declares) "of 
him also will the Son of man be ashamed, when hecometh 
in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels ;" evident- 
ly alluding to the same time as above. Now, what are 
his very next words ? " Verily I say unto you, that there 
be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of 
death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with 
power ;" — the very same, and almost in the same words 
as in Matthew. — Now turn to Luke, ninth chapter and 
twenty-sixth and seventh verses, where the words are al- 
most the same as in Mark — if possible, however, they are 
stronger, when pointing out the time of Christ coming in 
judgment : " when he (Christ) shall come in his own glo- 
ry, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels," and "I tell 
you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall 
not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God." 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 57 

Is it not surprising, is it not incredible, that a time 
which our Saviour appears to have been at so much pains 
to point out and identify, should be attempted to be car- 
ried by any candid person into a future state of existence? 
— Christ did come in judgment at the close of the Jewish 
dispensation, when the day of the gospel was ushered in 
with glory. In corroboration of this fact, Christ states 
that 'ime, that when he would appear to take vengeance 
on the ungodly and the unbelievers, should be a time of 
trouble and of tribulation, "such as was not since the be- 
ginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be." 
Matt. xxiv. 21. Now that Christ is here speaking of the 
same time of troubles, such as which shall not ever again 
occur, as when he came in his kingdom to take vengeance 
on the enemies of God, is evident, as he declares in con- 
nexion, that the generation to whom his words were ad- 
dressed " shall not pass, till ail these things be fulfilled." 
verse 54. 

That the troubles referred to are limited to the earth, 
is also shown by their nature, they being such only as 
could be experienced in this state of existence. " Let them 
which be in Judea flee unto the mountains — Let him that 
is on the house top not come down to take any thing out 
of his house — neither let him that is in the field return 
back to take his clothes — woe unto them that are with 
child, and to them that give suck in those days. But pray 
that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sab- 
bath. For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not 
since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor ever 
shall be. 5 ' Matt xxiv. 16 — 21. Compare, also, Daniel 
xii. 1 : " And at that time shall Michael stand up, the 
great prince which standeth for the children of thy peo- 
ple ; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never 
was since there was a nation even to that same time : and 
at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that 
shall be found written in the book." Thus, I have shown 
to you, my respected hearers, our views of this, which is 
the strongest testimony my opponent has brought forward 
in defence of the eternal misery of the wicked. If the cir- 
cumstances referred to above, are to take place in another 
world, this is for him to prove. 

But I hardly think any will credit the idea that Ch ist 
desired the disciples to pray that they might not be judged 
in another world "in the winter," or "on the Sabbath!" 
All the language has reference to calamities brought upon 

8 



58 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

the Jewish nation when their city was destroyed by the 
Roman armies — and their own historian, Josephus, states 
that the calamities which then hefel the inhabitants of Je- 
rusalem, were indescribably great ; that the destruction 
of this people exceeded all the destructions God or man had 
ever brought upon the world ; for such was the famine 
which they endured, that mothers, we are told, devoured 
for food their own children. Josephus says, the number 
of Jews who were destroyed amounted to 1,100,000 : and 
including those who were starved to death, or died from 
pestilence, the number who were swept from the face of 
the earth, " as with the besom of destruction," was up- 
wards of 1,300,000. Now, is there no vengeance, no 
judgment in all this ? or are these, upon whom God thus 
showered his vengeance, to be punished over again in 
another world ? " Surely these were the days of ven- 
geance, in which all the things that were written were 
accomplished. " Luke xxi. 22. 

It is altogether unnecessary forme to explain every text 
which my opponent brings forward, whew he does not at- 
tempt, by argument, to prove they mean what he says : — 
and, although I have done it in theahove instance, I shall 
not attempt it again. Let him give us his arguments to 
prove these texts refer to an eternal punishment, and we 
shall then test their force. My opponent knows very well 
that the original words translated in the above passages 
eternal, everlasting, &c. signify a limited duration, as 
well as a duration without end. If this be the fact, and 
he dare not deny it, it becomes him to show they are to be 
understood in an unlimited sense, in the passages he quotes. 
The true meaning of the original Greek words, «/»», au«wo?, is 
continued, but indefinite duration, and the length of the 
duration is to be understood always from the nature of the 
subject with which it is connected. If, in these pas- 
sages, the words signify a duration without an end — oi\ 
endless punishment to the sinner, we may, at least, infer 
that it is not inflicted in goodness, for no good can ever 
result to the sinner from it ; for, even if he repent and be- 
come holy, he is still in torment, his punishment or his suf- 
ferings, do not cease. 

5 1 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — When last up I was treating of thehei- 
nousness of sin, and of the real existence and materiality 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. $9 

*f Satan ; and, although some sinners make light of sin, 
and term it nothing, and speak of the devil as though no 
such being existed ; the scriptures, however, speak with 
an awful solemnity and certainty on this subject. They 
positively show that, there is a real material being called 
a devil, what those sinners may say to the contrary not- 
withstanding. But those sinners who deny his existence 
now, will awfully experience to the contrary, by and by ; 
for they will have their portion with him hereafter. We told 
you this devil was a murderer and a liar — see John viii. 
44, " Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your 
father ye will do : he was a murderer from the beginning, 
and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in 
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own : 
for he is a liar, and the father of it." I do not wish you 
to understand that he puts to death living matter, but he 
is a murderer of souls. The spirit of God regenerates and 
makes alive the souls of its own, and the devil puts to 
death, or murders the souls of his own. How strikingly 
opposite in their engagements and effects ? For while the 
spirit regenerates and saves the one, the devil murders and 
destroys the other ; as in Matt. xiii. 19, " When any one 
heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it 
not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that 
which was sown in the heart." Again, verse 25, ** But 
while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among 
the wheat, and went his way, but when the blade was 
sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the 
tares also. So the servants of the household came and 
said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy 
field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, 
an enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, 
Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up ? But he 
said, Nay; lest, while ye gather up the tares, ye root up 
also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until 
the harvest : and in the time of the harvest I will say to 
the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind 
them in bundles to burn them : but gather ye the wheat 
into my barn ;" here is a manifest difference between the 
fate of the wicked and the righteous. The devil is to have 
his own. The wicked are now, and ever will be, led cap- 
tive at his will. 2 Tim. iii. 5, " Having a form of godli- 
nees, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead 
captive silly women laden with sins, led away with di- 



69 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

vers lusts." And Satan never w ill give up those lie has 
got possession of, till one stronger than he shall come and 
drive him out. Matt. xii. x.4, *' But when the Pharisees 
heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, 
but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew 
their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divi- 
ded against itself is brought to desolation : and every 
city, or house, divided against itself shall not stand. And 
if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: — 
how then shall his kingdom stand ? And if I by Beelzebub 
cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? 
therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out de- 
vils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is 
come unto you. Or else, how can one enter into a strong 
man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the 
strong man ? and then he will spoil his house." But what 
does the scripture say of those in connexion with the de- 
vil. John viii. 41, " Ye do the deeds of your father:" 
and just below, he says, i6 Ye are of your father the de- 
vil ;" and he was a murderer from the beginning and the 
father of lies ; and he will continue you so forever. He 
says this of Satan, and all who are under his influence he 
calls his children. Paul says so, when speaking to one of 
them who was teaching the people contrary to the true 
doctrine, to Ely mas the sorcerer, who withstood them, 
seeking to turn the deputy from the faith. " Then Saul, 
(who is also called Paul), filled with the Holy Ghost, set 
his eyes upon him, and said, O full of all subtilty, and all 
mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy to all righ- 
teousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of 
the Lord ?" (What would tl»e apostle have said to those, 
who, in our days, pervert the scriptures to their own pri- 
vate views?) "And now, behold the hand of the Lord is 
upon thee, and thou shalt he blind, not seeing the sun for 
a season ; and immediately there fell on him a mist and a 
darkness : and he went about seeking some to lead him by 
the hand. Then the deputy when he saw what was done, 
believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord." — 
Acts xiii. 9 — 12. The apostle, here, speaks as if there 
would be no end of these tilings, but, according to the sor- 
cerer and my opponent, the apostle is wrong ; for there 
shall be an end of these things. Which is right, it is for 
you to judge. And when the devil, represented as a real 
being, gets posses ion of another real being, they both go 
to their own place. I should conceive hell to be a ve,ry 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 61 

poor place to learn the way to heaven. Will the devil, 
pray, war against his own house, ami help them to get 
there? Their present practices prove rather that they are 
preparing for that place, where, as it is said in Rom. ii. 
8, 9, " They who are contentious, and do not obey the 
truth, hut obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 
tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that do- 
etb evil, of the Jew first, and also the Gentile:" where 
they will go on increasing their debt due to God and his 
law, and increasing in the same ratio, in punishment, to 
all eternity. The scriptures declare, (and my opponent 
in his Lectures admits it), that the transgressor of the 
law of God, is punished for his transgression ; and if I can 
prove this to he eternal, why may it not be continually 
increasing unto those who reject so great a salvation? — 
As in Rev. xx. 1, " And I saw an angel come down from 
heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great 
chain in his hand :" here is as strong a phrase as could 
possibly be used to convey the idea of endless punishment. 
Who does not know that a bottomless pit means a pit 
without any end ?. " And he laid hold on the dragon, 
that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, and bound 
him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless 
pit. and shut him up, and set a seal upon him that he 
should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years 
should he fulfilled, and after that he must be loosed a little 
season." I presume my opponent will agree with me, that 
the pit here spoken of is hell, and by its being represented 
as bottomless, I conceive it means that they will increase 
in sin and in suffering to an endless eternity! And we 
see, and think that we have shown that this is the meaning 
intended to be conveyed in scripture. 

My opponent observed, lie wished, in this discussion, 
that we should confine ourselves to the common version — 
I am willing to take any translation ; for, wherever bot- 
tomless pit is used, it will convey the same idea, and can- 
not be otherwise explained, but that it means, in a correct 
sense, a place where sins continually increase, and con- 
sequently suffer ng. When we come to other translations, 
it may be necessary to notice a remarkable literary curi- 
osity that lately made its appearance in Philadelphia, 
called a new translation of the New Testament, from the 
original Greek, by one Abner Kneeland, which is worthy 
the attention of every one, for the gross absurdities and 
misrepresentations contained in it. I have now spent as 



62 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

much time as is necessary on that part of my argument, 
which I called inferential, that is, drawn from the justice 
of God, and the depravity of man, which shows that God's 
law must be fulfilled or an atonement made, and the trans- 
gression pardoned, or the transgressor will be forever doom- 
ed to perpetual and never ending punishment: and that from 
the naturally depraved state of man, he cannot save him- 
self from the penalty of the law, but must be saved by the 
grace of God ; that is, by the atonement made by our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and accepted by his Father. And, also, that 
all will not be partakers of this salvation. 

2dly, I shall now take notice of that part of the evidence 
which was termed, by implication, because it is so clearly 
implied in scripture that it cannot be misunderstood, ex- 
cept by those who wilfully misunderstand it, or misinter- 
pret the scriptures to suit their own purpose. 

We will, by and by, get to what my opponent has been 
calling for so long, and seems so remarkably uneasy about, 
pretending to fear that I cannot produce it, but rather fear- 
ing that 1 can. I am sorry I cannot gratify him sooner : 
but I must take my own way. The passages where the 
doctrine which I am contending for, is clearly implied, 
are the following, viz : — Matt. vi. 2, " Therefore, when 
thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee 
as the hypocrites do in the synagogues, and in the streets, 
that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, 
they have their reward." 

Their reward is certainly to be understood of a very 
different sort from the reward of the righteous. Common 
sense, without any knowledge of Greek, will teach us this, 
for if we understand it in any other way, they must be as 
happy as the righteous. Ps. xvii. 14, " Deliver my soul 
from men which are thy hand, O Lord, from men of the 
world, which have their portion in this life ;" (but ac- 
cording to my opponent this is wrong, for he says they 
will have it in another life;) "and whose belly thou fil- 
lest with thy hid treasure : they are full of children, and 
leave the rest of their substance to their babes. As for me, 
I will behold thy face in righteousness : I shall be satis- 
fied, when I awake, with thy likeness." Luke xvi. 2/ — 
*' But Abraham, said, Son, remember that thou in thy life- 
time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil 
things: but he is comforted, and thou art tormented." — 
Yes, and all the wicked will be tormented to an absolute 
eternity. Now, observe, the wicked received good things 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 63 

in this life, and the good are to receive them in another 
life. Now this is surely a very plain doctrine ; one that 
every hody may understand; so plain, indeed, that he 
must be wilfully blind who does not see it. The whole of 
the beatitudes, (so called, because they refer to certain 
promised blessings) contained in Matt. v. 1, clearly im- 
ply that the reverse of those blessings shall fall upon the 
wicked. 

Thus, when our Lord says, "Blessed are the poor in 
spirit : for their's is the kingdom of heaven," it is clearly 
implied that the kingdom of heaven is not their's who are 
proud in spirit ; but rather as it said in Malachi, iv. 1, 
** For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven ; 
and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be 
stubble ; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, 
saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither 
root nor branch." Here is as plain an implication as 
could possibly be produced. Again, "Blessed are the 
pure in heart for they shall see God f 9 it is clearly im- 
plied that those who are not pure in heart shall not see 
God ; and so of all the rest. Again, Paul in his first epis- 
tle to the Corinthians, x. 9 — II, speaking of the fearful 
end of the wicked, says, " Neither let us tempt Christ, as 
some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of ser- 
pents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them ahsp mur- 
mured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all 
these things happened unto them for ensamples : and they 
are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of 
the world are come." Matt. xxvi. 24, "The Son of man 
goeth as it is written of him : but woe unto that man by 
whom the Son of man is betrayed ! it had been good for 
that man if he had not been born." This is the last one 
that it will be necessary to mention, it is so fully to the 
purpose. 

Some who think themselves wonderfully learned — learn- 
ed enough to give us, what they call a new translation 
of the Greek Testament, and who despise the more hum* 
ble talents of laymen, whose talents and knowledge may 
exceed theirs ten to one, explain to their poor, ignorant, 
deluded followers, who do not know their right hand from 
their left, that this does not mean what it so plainly says ; 
but tell them by a note in this said translation, it was good 
for Judas to be born, as he went to heaven before his mas- 
ter, whom he betrayed ! But we wish to take the scrip- 
tures as we find them, and not garble and twist them by 



64 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

new translations, and then we find they are plain and easy 
to be understood. They say, woe to that man by whom 
the Son of man is betrayed ! " It had been good for that 
man if he had not been born." Yes, indeed, it would have 
been good for him ; and all his descendants will, in the 
last day, set their seal to the truth of these words, and 
wish that they had never been born, or that they had been 
annihilated, when they will, with horror, call upon the 
rocks and the mountains to fall upon them and to crush 
them into non-existence; and will weep forever that they 
were suffered to be born. Now if, as my opponent says, 
there is no punishment after death, these words, " it had 
been good for that man if he had never been born," are 
not used correctly ; or else they have no meaning at all ; 
for if there is no future punishment, it is good for him that 
he was born. Yes, and even if that punishment is not ab- 
solutely eternal, the words are not correct, for were there 
any end to it though it should last for millions of millions 
and ten thousand times ten thousand millions of years, and 
that, too, in the Hell which we think most horrible, it 
would even then be well for Judas and his followers in our 
day, if they were then to be rewarded with eternal happi- 
ness ; it would, I say, be good for them if there be any end 
to this punishment : for what is the greatest space of time 
which the power of numbers can reach, compared to in- 
finity 1 

I know my opponent will stand up presently and tell 
you that I do not advance scripture to support my doc- 
trine, and that I waste my whole time too, without com- 
ing to the point, and that he has nothing to answer. It 
is for you to judge whether I do or not. 

There is another way of inculcating this doctrine in the 
scriptures, namely, by asking questions, and this is per- 
haps the strongest way of proving it ; amounting, almost, 
to positive testimony, and is certainly very conclusive. 
Thus, St. Peter says, " If the righteous scarcely be saved, 
where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear ?" In Heb. 
ii ? 2, "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and 
every transgression and disobedience received a just re- 
compense of reward ; How shall we escape, if we neglect 
so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken 
by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that 
heard him." Again, xii. 25, " See that ye refuse not him 
that speakcth : for if they escaped not who refused him 
that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 65 

if we turn away from him lhat speaketh from heaven.'* 
Here it is declared we cannot escape if we will. Lastly, 
Luke ix. 25, " And he said to them all, If any man will 
come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross 
daily, and follow me ; for whosoever will save his life shall 
lose it; hut whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the 
same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged if he 
gain the whole world and lose himself, or he cast away ? 
For whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, 
of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when lie comes in 
his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels :" 
or as it is in Matt. " What will a man give in exchange 
for his soul V 9 But let it be translated life, if you please, 
for it evidently means the life of the soul ; for when an im- 
penitent sinner loses the life of his body, he loses the life 
of his soul also. Who does not know this ? Whoso loses 
his life gains it : he cannot lose it and gain it too, at one 
and the same time, if the same life be meant. No, but 
though it is not directly expressed, it is clearly implied, 
that the life he loses is the temporal life, and the one he 
gains, the spiritual ; so that if we admit it, according to 
the translation of my very learned opponent, it does not alter 
the sense of the passage ; hut it is as clearly implied one 
way as the other. 

We have now done with the mode of evidence by infe- 
rence, by implication, and by interrogation; we will, there- 
fore, pass to the next mode, which is by contrast : where 
the righteous and the wicked, their life, standing, and fu- 
ture state are contrasted together as in the following pas- 
sages; and which it is utterly impossible to reconcile 
otherwise, than by the doctrine of an absolutely eternal 
punishment. 

I could mention numerous passages where blessing is 
contrasted with cursing, as " all the ways of the Lord are 
mercy and truth, unto such as keep his covenant and his 
testimonies." Ps* xxv. 10 : But my opponent says, to the 
wicked that keep not his covenant. And such passages 
as the following : Prov. iii. 33, "The curse of the Lord 
is in the house of the wicked ; but he blesseth the habita- 
tion of the just." Isa. xlix. 26, "And I will feed them 
that oppress thee with their own flesh : and they shall be 
drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine : and 
all flesh shall know that I, the Lord, am thy Saviour and 
thy Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob !" He does not 
say he is the Saviour of those who eat their own flesh, 

9 



66 THEOLOGICAL DISCUS SIOX. 

though my opponent says he is. Deut. xxxii, 13, "Re- 
joice, O ye nations, with his people ; for he will avenge 
the hlood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his 
adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to 
his people/' My opponent says he will be merciful to all, 
and even to his adversaries also. And again, Hcb. xii. 
8, " But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are 
partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons." Here is a 
strong contrast between the sons of God and the children 
of the wicked one. Matt. Sail. 47, " The kingdom of hea- 
ven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and 
gathered of every kind ; which when it was full, they drew r 
to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into ves- 
sels, but cast the bad away : so shall it be at the end of 
the world." My opponent says they will gather both bad 
and good into vessels, which means heaven. Rom, i. 16, 
Paul says, " The gospel is the power of God unto salva- 
tion, unto every one who believeth ;" but my opponent 
says all shall be saved, whether they believe or not. — 
Again, in Matt, xxiv, 48 — 51, "If that evil servant 
shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming ; and 
shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and 
to drink with the drunken ; the lord of that servant shall 
come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an 
hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, 
and shall appoint him his portion with the hypocrites : 
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Christ 
says of his own disciples, " None have I lost hut the 
son of perdition." My opponent would make us believe 
that he was not lost : for he insists upon it, that hy- 
pocrites, murderers, and liars, and all vile sinners, shall 
be saved, no matter how vile nor how unworthy. Rev. 
xi. 18, "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is 
come, and the time of the dead, that they should be 
judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy ser- 
vants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear 
thy name, small and great ; and shouldest destroy them 
which destroy the earth." But my opponent tells you 
that none shall be destroyed, that all shall go to heaven. 
Rev. xxii. 11, It is said, when the things of time are clos- 
ed forever, " He that is unjust let him be unjust still, he 
that is filthy let him be filthy still, and he that is righteous 
let him be righteous still." But my opponent says, that 
the unjust shall not remain unjust, but that all unjust and 
filthy shall go to heaven, and of course, all must be made 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 67 

holy; for "without holiness no man can see the Lord:" but 
Dr. Lardner and my opponent do not believe in those parts 
of the scriptures which militate against their doctrines : 
they say they are not genuine, but are doubtful or spurious. 
But we believe them, and trust that they will be all fulfilled 
in due time; as it is said in Matt. xxv. 31 — 46, " When the 
Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy an- 
gels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glo- 
ry: and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he 
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divi- 
deth his sheep from the goats : and he shall set the sheep 
on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall 
the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye bles- 
sed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you 
from the foundation of the world : for I was an hungered, 
and ye gave me meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me 
drink : I was a stranger, and ye took me in : naked, and 
ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in 
prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous 
answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hunger- 
ed, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When 
saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and 
clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, 
and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say 
unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have 
done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have 
done it unto me. Then shall he say unto them on the left 
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, 
prepared for the devil and his angels : For I was an hun- 
gered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye 
gave me no drink : I was a stranger, and ye took me not 
in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and 
ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, 
saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, 
or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not 
minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, 
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one 
of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall 
go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous 
into life eternal." This certainly refers to the end of 
time, as I have clearly stated ; of course, therefore, as 
there will be no change after our Lord's second coming, 
the punishment must be also as eternal as the life. Again, 
Luke xvi. 19, (read the account concerning the rich man, J 
Now take notice, '* And besides all this, between us and 



6$ THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 

you tli ere is a great gulf fixed : so that they which would 
pass from hence to you cannot ; neither can they pass to 
us, that would come from thence." Now if this will ad- 
mit of passing through the gulf, so that they may escape 
from misery at any time, no matter how remote, so as to 
arrive at a state of happiness, I must confess that I do not 
know any thing of the meaning of language; and I defy 
any scholar, whether layman or other, to prove the lan- 
guage here used, to mean any thing, other than what I have 
attached to it: if they do, I must candidly confess that I 
do not understand it. To me, it is so very plain, " though 
he would go, he cannot;" for there is an impassahle gulf 
between them, over which, sinners doomed to perish, will 
not be able to build a bridge, 

I think I have now clearly shown from the scriptures, 
that the doctrine of the absolutely eternal punishment of the 
wicked is a scriptural doctrine, let who will gainsay it. 
I have shown it, 1st, By inference drawn from the attri- 
butes of God : 2dly, By implication, in those passages 
where it is clearly implied : 3dly, By interrogation : 4thly, 
By contrast, as, some are represented as believers, and 
some unbelievers ; some are Messed, and some cursed $ 
some righteous, and some wicked ; some are subjects of 
mercy, and some are not ; some are sons, and others has- 
tards ; some good, and some bad ; some saved, and some 
lost; some rewarded, and some punished ; some just, and 
some unjust, and who are ever to remain so; some re- 
warded, and some condemned ; some, &c. 

6 o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — By this time, my respected hearers, you 
must be tired of remaining in this crowded assembly, and 
I am extremely sorry that your time has been occupied 
with so little profit ; and if the discussion be continued in 
the same manner, there is no telling when it will end ; 
and, I really am astonished that you could sit so long with 
the patient attention you have evinced. There are still 
thirty minutes for me, to close the debate of this day, and 
as my opponent has not come to his direct testimony, but is 
still on his way, perhaps just commenced, there is but little 
for me to do. — He has talked much ahout his argument by 
inference; from it he has passed to his argument by im- 
plication, from that to interrogation, and from that to con- 
trast ; but when he will come to the direct testimony which 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 6,9 

requires the endless misery of the wicked, the only testi- 
mony you have any right to receive, — the Omniscient Be- 
ing only knows. 

It appears to me, and I think it must also appear to you, 
that my opponent had not only the outlines, but the very 
body of his argument, completely prepared before he came 
to the controversy ; for he is going straight on in his long 
story, without taking notice of aught I say — without 
replying to any objection I bring against his proofs, and 
if you can hear him to the end, I must say that there is 
much credit your due. 

Instead of attempting to prove his doctrine by inference, 
and implication, and interrogation, and contrast, I should 
have thought it would have been more logical, more con- 
vincing, to have adduced his strongest testimony first, and 
if this bear him out, no other would be necessary. Why 
use arguments unnecessarily ? If the law of God demand 
the absolute eternal misery of the wicked, why is it neces- 
sary to have recourse to indirect testimony ? But it seems 
that my opponent had anticipated that all he could possibly 
say, every species of argument, weak and strong, he was 
able to devise, would be necessary to make an impression 
on your minds, and lest he should not be able to command 
your patience until the end of his dissertation, he reserves 
his strongest arguments to the last, that, not hearing them, 
you may imagine them greater than what they are. In 
this he is certainly wise. — If the doctrine of endless mise- 
ry is only to be proved by indirect testimony, or inferen- 
tial arguments, it is difficult for me to imagine what some 
men might not infer. — The doctrine, my respected an* 
dience, is too important, it involves too much, to be put 
on such weak, unstable ground as this. — His arguments 
from implication, as he terms them, are nothing better 
than his inferential arguments. Indeed there is, in real- 
ity, very little difference between inference and implica 
tion. 

I could cheerfully admit, with my opponent, the truth 
of all the scripture testimony he has adduced in favour of 
his argument, by inference, implication, interrogation, 
and contrast, and still contend that the doctrine which he 
attempts to support, is not even in any manner implied by 
it. Because it is said of 6i the poor in spirit," that " theirs 
is the kingdom of heaven," shall we therefore infer that 
the proud and haughty shall never enter heaven ? Can 
they never be humbled ? Cannot God subdue their pride 



70 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

and hauteur? And if we admit, what cannot he denied, 
that God is able, in his own time, to humble the spirit of 
man, then the testimony is true, and he who was once 
proud and haughty, may become meek and humble, when 
« his, also, will be the kingdom of heaven." — Was not 
Saul of Tarsus — the fierce persecutor of the Lord Jesus, 
and of his church — once a proud man ? Yet, when God 
saw fit, he was subdued into the meek apostle of the Gen- 
tiles, Paul, a servant of God, who is so humble as to call 
himself the chief of sinners — not worthy to be called an 
apostle. 

It was stated by my opponent, that the ungodly and the 
sinner, can never be saved ; but when he made this decla- 
ration, it did not occur to him, I presume, that Jesus 
Christ came ♦"' to call sinners," and not the righteous, 
"to repentance." Matt. ix. 13. " They that are whole 
iieed not a physician, but they that are sick." The righ- 
teous, if any can be found, need no salvation. But we con- 
tend that no sinner can be saved in his sins, for sin and 
misery are inseparably connected. Now, if the ungodly 
and the sinner, cannot be made righteous and holy, I ask, 
How many will be saved ? how many are there who die 
righteous ? What is salvation, but to turn the sinner from 
the error of his ways — " Thou shalt call his name Jesus." 
"Why ? — because he shall save his people from eternal mise- 
ry in another world? No ! but M from their sins." And 
when they forsake their evil ways, and learn to do good, 
will they not then be righteous — will they be any longer 
sinners ? 

The next species of argument my opponent adduces, is, 
that by interrogation, or, where a question is asked — but 
what has he proved by it? Nothing $ — and for this good 
reason, because it proves nothing in any of the instances 
which he has brought forward — I admit the force of a 
statement, by way of interrogation, on subjects that are 
self-evident, or, are not disputed — but no disputed propo- 
sition, it is evident, can be settled by this species of argu- 
ment. 

The third species of argument brought by my opponent 
in defence of his doctrine, which, he says, amounts almost 
to a conclusion, is the contrast pointed out in the scrip- 
tures, between the righteous and the wicked ; and it would 
appear that he wishes you to believe that this contrast 
will be collateral with their respective existences, and, 
therefore, concludes from it, that the wicked will remain 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS 71 

&o to an absolute eternity. But, although we admit that 
the scriptures hold up these two characters to our view* 
does it, from thence, necessarily follow, that he who was 
once a sinner must always remain so. The only salvation 
I believe in, the only salvation I know of — is a salvation 
of the sinner from his sins; thus changing him from sin 
unto holiness — a change, which it was theobject of Christ's 
mission, as it was expressly declared of him, to effect.— - 
Paul says, 1 Tim. i. 13, That he was "before a blasphe- 
mer, and a persecutor, and injurious : but I obtained mer- 
cy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." Here we have 
the apostle's own words that he was once a sinner, and a 
very vile one, was strongly contrasted with a righteous 
man. But did he always remain so ? No ! — He declares, 
Rom. viii. 2, "The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Je- 
sus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death."— 
My opponent has told you that my doctrine is an abomina- 
tion, and were you to conceive of it, as he has misrepre- 
sented it, you would justly think so ; but he has this day, 
asserted many things, as my belief, which never fell from 
my lips — which have never proceeded from my pen ; but 
When he said I believed so and so, I presume he meant 
only my doctrine taught it. He says the doctrine of Uni- 
versal salvation, declares that all abominations, evil 
speakers, murderers, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, &c. 
shall be saved and go to heaven just as they are ; — now, 
when and where has he, or any of you, heard this from 
me, or from any Universalist preacher ? If slander be ar- 
gument, put this down to the credit of my opponent. — 
Does the statement occur in any of my writings ? if so, 
let him point out to me in what one. Such a doctrine I never 
taught — I never believed — I never had the least idea of. 
Jesus says to one of the malefactors who was executed 
with him, " This day shalt thou be with me in Para- 
dise." Now, what was the character of the individual 
to whom this address was made ? — He was a condemned 
thief, or, as it is in the Greek, a robber; and for this 
crime was he executed. Would it now be right for any 
one to infer, because Christ said, if such was the meaning, 
that he should accompany him to heaven, that there is a 
thief in heaven ? My opponent himself, I presume, in 
common with every reasonable being, would conclude, that 
before he entered heaven, he was changed from sin to ho- 
liness — he could not enter heaven until he was made like 
Christ, holy and sinless. Now, no more than you suppose 



79. THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

my opponent believes this thief went into heaven a thief, 
are you to suppose that we admit that sinners go to heaven 
in their sins. 

My opponent has said, that men must he made holy be- 
fore they can enter heaven. This I never disputed, for 
it is written " without holiness no man can see the Lord." 
Heb. xii. 14. Here we are perfectly agreed. Men, be- 
fore they can be made happy, any where, must be made 
holy — for sin and misery, holiness and happiness, are, as 
I believe, invariably and eternally connected. 

My opponent has told you, that in the end of the world 
Christ will say to the righteous, ft Come ye blessed, &c. 
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation 
of the world ;" and to the wicked, " Depart from me ye 
cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and 
his angels." Matt. xxv. 34 — 41. And takes it for granted, 
calculating upon the prejudices of education, that you will 
receive the term, " end of the world," as it is generally 
received in our day, as signifying the end of this material 
world — the end of time. Now what says Paul concerning 
this " end of the world ?" " But now, once in the end of 
the world, hath, he (Jesus) appeared to put aw 7 ay sin by 
the sacrifice of himself." Heb. ix. 26. To the end of 
what world does the apostle allude ? In the end of what 
world did Christ " put away sin by the sacrifice of him- 
self? Did he suffer in the end of time ? This will not be 
admitted. Does the term end of the world, therefore, 
necessarily imply, that the judgment referred to in Mat- 
thew, must be when time shall be no more ? When Jesus 
spoke to his disciples of the destruction of the temple at 
Jerusalem, his disciples inquired of him, what should 
be the sign of the end of the world — Jesus goes on to an- 
swer them, and to point out the events which should usher 
in the end of the world — " Ye shall hear of wars and ru- 
mors of wars — see that ye be not troubled ; for all these 
things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. Nation 
shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against king- 
dom, and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and 
earthquakes, in divers places; all these are the beginning 
of sorrows — this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached 
in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; then shall 
the end come." Matt. xxiv. The end of what world is 
here pointed out ? — The end of that world in which Christ 
appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself — 
The end of the legal world — when Christ appeared in 



THEOLOGICAIi DISCUSSION* 73 

judgment, in the glory of his father, to render unto every 
man according to his works, and to usher in the reign of 
the gospel of peace ; for we are expressly told that the 
end of the world, of which Christ was speaking, should 
come in the life time of some of those very people to whom 
he was addressing himself. 

My opponent has told you, thatUniversalists, in common 
with your speaker, talk very lightly of this judgment, and 
of the end of the world, and would wish to do it away — 
Have you ever heard me attempt any thing of the kind ? 
Bo you think I would wish to do it away, even if I could? 
Jf my opponent thinks so — lie once more is mistaken. — 
Far be it, from me, to alter a single passage of scHpture, 
from its true meaning — it is against this very thing that 
your speaker is now contending — for scripture has too of- 
ten been perverted, to suit the purposes of men. 

My opponent has told you something about a hell in a 
future world — that the scriptures always speak of it as a 
solemn thing — he endeavoured, also, to show you that this 
hell was meant by the bottomless pit, spoken of in the 
Revelation ; and by this figure, he informed you, he un- 
derstood that in hell there would be an eternal increase of 
suffering; that the sinner, through all eternity, would sink 
deeper and deeper in anguish and suffering. For the truth 
of all this imaginary picture, we have the bare assertion 
of my opponent. Has he given us, from scripture, any 
proof of the existence of such a place of torment in the fu- 
ture world ? He has told you, to be sure, that this is his 
opinion, and I have no doubt, that in this statement, he is 
candid. 

As my opponent has given me nothing new to reply to, 
I have nothing, of course, to say in answer; he has, how- 
ever, promised us the testimony which requires the misery 
of the sinner throughout eternity ; of course, we must wait 
until to-morrow to see what is the nature and amount of 
this testimony. 

I have one request to make before we part, that my op- 
ponent, between this and the morrow, will endeavour to 
prepare himself to comply with my repeated requests, to 
point out the law of God, that requires the eternal misery 
of the wieked. — When this law is produced, to it I bow in 
humble obedience. 

My opponent has charged me with challenging the 
world to a public discussion, this I positively deny. I 
never gave a challenge for such a purpose. Yet J never 

10 



74 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

refused to meet any one, who regularly required it. And. 
if he be pleased to term that, a challenge, to a public dis- 
cussion, which is contained in the preface to my Lectures, 
it is a mistake of his ; it was not my meaning. I merely 
wished to hear any objections to it through the same me- 
dium, in which it had been made known, namely, through 
the medium of the press. 

Once more, before we dismiss, I earnestly entreat my 
opponent, if that his doctrine can be proved from the 
scriptures, that he prove it at once ; and when he does 
produce the testimony required, I pledge myself to give it 
every attention which it merits. 

i" suggested to my opponent in the morning, the propriety 
of opening the discussion with prayer. He observed, that 
each one would have liberty, he presumed, to open and close 
in his own way. Therefore, as it devolves on me to close the 
labours of the day, I cannot, in conscience — [Mr, M* Call a 
here run up the pulpit stairs and addressed Mr. Kneeland 
in a low voice, holding up his hand.] Mr. Kneeland — 
My opponent says he cannot, conscientiously, unite with me 
in prayer; and therefore, out of delicacy to his feelings, we 
shall dispense with it, Mr. M'Calla — Hook upon our sys- 
tem as Christian, and theirs as anti-christian, and cannot, 
therefore, conscientiously join with them in prayer, Mr, 
Kneeland — (smiling) — Very well — Let it be so now. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



SECOND DAY. 



WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY 14, 

9 i o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — As I have already stated, I suggested 
to my opponent yesterday morning, that we should open 
the discussion with prayer : he suggested that each should 
have the privilege to open and close in his own way. To 
this I assented, and had proposed closing the labours of 
yesterday, with a prayer to God for his approbation and 
assistance ; when, for the first time, to my inexpressible 
astonishment, I was informed, that the tender conscience 
of my opponent, would not permit him to join with me in 
prayer : thus has he given to you some of the spirit of the 
doctrine which he has come here to vindicate; and I 
should be very sorry to think that his conduct is a speci- 
men of the practice it inculcates — conduct, which I would 
not attribute to any man living, save my opponent. Pur- 
suing this line of conduct, he, this morning, when we met, 
refused to accept of my hand, which I, in friendship, ten- 
dered to him. But, my hearers, while I stand in this desk 
I feel myself at home — I appear here in the path of my 
duty, to vindicate the ways of God to man ; and being 
about to resume the discussion of a subject, upon which 
depends your eternal welfare, I cannot, conscientiously, 
open it this morning without an address to that Deity, in 
whom I believe, and on whom I depend for salvation, to 
solicit his aid and assistance for you as well as for your 
speaker. Those who can unite with me in this delightful 
service, will show their assent to my petition by rising, 
that being the mode in which we offer our prayers to God | 
those whose consciencies will not permit them to do so, 
will not be considered as out of the way if they remain 
seated — Let us pray — 

[Here Mr. Kneeland prayed to God for wisdom, for 
light and for understanding — returning thanks for all his 



76 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

mercies, both of bis providence and grace — for life, for the 
scriptures, for the gift of bis Son — praying to be kept 
from temptation — to be directed in all truth, and to be re- 
ceived into heaven hereafter — all which petitions and 
thanksgivings, he offered on behalf of those who united 
with him, in the name, and as the professed disciples of a 
once crucified, but now risen and exalted Saviour.] 

You will recollect, that after the discussion was opened 
on the morning of yesterday, by my opponent, when it 
came to my turn to speak, that I proposed to bring him 
to one or other of the three following points, upon which 
to prove the truth of the first member of the proposition in 
debate ; " That the punishment of the wicked is absolutely 
eternal ;" viz : either, first, by observing that the law of 
God requires such a punishment ; or, second, That the 
testimony of the pophets, of Christ and his apostles, point 
out that, although no law to that effect has been revealed, 
yet, nevertheless, such a punishment shall be inflicted ; or, 
third, To show that from the revealed character of God, 
it is reasonable to conclude, that such will be the fact. 

I endeavoured, earnestly, throughout the whole of yes- 
terday, to bring him to these points, without effect; — so 
far from coming to them, you must have perceived, that 
on his part, the discussion was completely prepared in all 
its parts before he came into this house. While I am 
speaking he is reading his little book, without attending 
to the arguments I may offer against his doctrine. Were 
I to pursue a similar course of conduct you would then 
have a formal treatise on eternal misery on the one part, 
and one on Universal salvation on the other. This is no 
discussion — this is continued reading straight forward on 
his part, and incessant entreaties on mine to bring him to 
the point in dispute, viz : Whether the punishment which 
we both agree will be inflicted on the sinner, is eternal. — 
He has been pleased to assert, that he thought it was re- 
ally strange, that I should call upon him so often, to bring 
his arguments from the word of God, when I was an un- 
believer in the sacred scriptures. Now, I declare in your 
presence, and before that God, who is the searcher of all 
hearts — that Being-, whom I have this morning addressed 
in prayer, my unbounded faith in the Volume of Revela- 
tion ; and while I make this declaration, I consider it as 
my unalienable privilege to read and understand this book 
for myself; I am not accountable to any living being for 
the use I make of my understanding, save to that God 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 7f 

alone who gave me understanding. Whatever I find in 
the word of God, it is my duty, reverentially, to receive as 
such. And now, after I have made this public and solemn 
declaration, until I can be proved to be a liar, I trust, I 
shall not again be charged, bv my opponent, with unbe- 
lief. 

It may be thought strange, that I do not attempt to fol- 
low my opponent through all the different testimonies he 
has quoted as evidence in his favour. If I were to do this, 
as he quotes without argument, what would be the benefit. 
I might quote, on the other hand, texts, which I believe to 
declare God's will and purpose to save mankind univer- 
sally ; and if they are to be received without argument, 
you would have Universal salvation proved from the scrip- 
tures, on the one hand, and eternal misery proved, or at- 
tempted to be proved, on the other. 

But this is not discussion — but lest it should, for a mo- 
ment, be supposed I feel afraid of any passage he has, or 
can bring forward, from the word of God, I now state 
that I am willing to take the person and character of the 
traitor, Judas, as the entire subject of the debate, to de- 
cide the question under discussion ; and if my opponent 
can prove that Judas is to be eternally miserable, I admit 
that he proves his doctrine ; but if I prove, from the tes- 
timony of the inspired writers, that there is as much rea- 
son to believe he will be saved, as there is to believe that 
any of the other disciples will he saved, then he has lost 
the argument. If my opponent will not meet me on this, 
or on any other argument, you, my hearers, will say it is 
because he dare not. 

He stated, in reference to the note in my translation of 
the Testament, where it is said that the text will not bear 
the construction of " good were it for that man if he had 
never had an existence," that it is incorrect, and trium- 
phantly declared, that though this very learned man, mean- 
ing his opponent, had said that the Greek words, rendered 
in the common translation, " it had been good for that 
man, if he had not been born," would not bear the con- 
struction of its being good for Judas if he had never ex- 
isted, yet that he knew they would. Now, you have the 
assertion of Mr. M'Calla, on the one side, and that of 
this learned man, as he lias been pleased to style him, on 
the other ; and one, you must be aware, is just as good as 
the other, until some argument is brought in their de- 
fence. 



78 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

It may possibly be supposed, by my opponent, that be- 
cause he is from a state, whose sons did themselves much 
honour on a certain occasion, of which I will not mention, 
his word, must, therefore, betaken on subjects of religion 
and criticism, without dispute ; but, he will now have to 
learn, that before we can believe him, at least on subjects 
of religion, he must give us, a " thus saith tire Lord," in 
support of the truth of his assertions. 

The phrase, in relation to Judas, is kaxcv m av™, u ovx, 
eysmi&H o <tvBpanroe muvos " Good were it for that man, if he had 
not been born." My opponent says that the true meaning 
is, " Good were it for Judas if he had never had any ex- 
istence." Now, I ask, if Judas had never had a being, 
could any thing have been good for him ? Could any 
thing be good for you, my hearers, if you had never been 
brought into existence ? The idea of any thing being good 
for Judas, implies, in itself, that he must have had a be- 
ing. My opponent asserts, also, that the common trans- 
lation, is the true rendering of the original. I proposed, 
in the commencement of this discussion, that we might 
confine ourselves to the common translation, in order to 
save time. He says I requested this — this, like many other 
of his statements, is an error. But as he declined, and 
gave me liberty to have recourse to any translation F 
should think proper, I shall avail myself, on this occa- 
sion, of that privilege. 

I have in my possession five different versions of the 
New Testament in Latin ; that of Tremellius — of Hiero- 
nymous — the vulgate — and of Hutterius, in the Latin, and 
eleven other languages, viz : Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, La- 
tin, Italian, French, English, German, Danish, Bohemi- 
an and Polish ; and I will undertake to say, although I 
am unacquainted with some of the latter languages, yet, 
that in five at least, out of seven of these versions, the 
original is rendered by terms equivalent to the English 
expression, " Good were it for that man were he not born." 

In support of this assertion, I hold in my hand a strip 
of paper, containing the Greek and these five Latin ver- 
sions of this passage, which I now hand to our Judges, 
one of whom has been recommended to me, (by whom I 
will not say), as one of the most learned men we have in 
this city ; and if they can find in these versions, any thing 
to indicate that the passage implies, that ** it would have 
been good for Judas if he had never had an existence," 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 79 

let them say so, and the point is settled.* I hold in my 
hand, also, the New Testament in Greek, a miniature edi- 
tion, 136 years old — it is the first edition of Luesden — ■ 
and to this hook, published long before the late improve- 
ments of the text, by Griesbach, and others ; I am willing 
to refer for the decision of this question ; not only as it 
relates to Judas, but as it relates to the whole subject in 
debate. 

" To the law," then, " and to the testimony : if they 
speak not according to this word, it is because there is no 
light in them." If now my opponent feels himself pre- 
pared to meet me, on the ground which I have this morn- 
ing assumed, I will give way for him, and will attend to 
every argument which he can produce. 

One word more — I perceived, with much regret, that 
during that part of the discussion which has passed, some 
of this assembly seemed disposed to be disorderly. This 
house, whatever my opponent may think of it, or insinu- 
ate to the contrary, is not a play-house, but is dedicated 
to the solemn worship of the Almighty God ; and while 
we are in it, it becomes us to behave with that decency, 
which serious minds will always be disposed to preserve in 
his presence. I am sorry to say, that this conduct, has, 
in a great measure, arisen from the course pursued by my 
opponent, in his attempts to rouse the feelings of the audi- 
ence, by wit and sarcasms — for which some are disposed 
to applaud him — but were he not to excite you to applaud, 
there would be none to hiss. 1 trust, therefore, for the 
future, that you will preserve silence, whatever may be 
said by either of your speakers. To hear silently and 
cautiously, to weigh the arguments offered on either side 
of the question, is the only manner in which you can de- 
rive solid instruction, from the discussion of this all im- 
portant and solemn subject. 

10 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — I came from a country that has been 
used to war, and understand well the meaning of the word 

* The following note was then put into the hands of the Moderators, 
who remained perfectly silent on their seats : — 

Original Greek, K«txov»v «u/t&>, « ovx, s^svv»9» o avpavoc iKUvog. "Bonum 
erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille." Hyeron. Mont, and the Vulgate. 
"Bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille," Hutt. "Tolerabilius 
fuisset homoni illi si non esset natus." Trem. 



SO THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

finesse. My brethren of Kentucky, during the. last war, 
went out scouring our prairies ; — the English officers 
would draw them into a snare, and make prisoners of them, 
and then send word to our commanders, that if they did 
not surrender at discretion, they would let loose their In- 
dians upon them, who might bury their tomahawks in 
their bosoms, for which they could not be accountable : 
€i For," they would say, " we cannot prevent what they 
may do, if you do not, by immediate surrendering, deliver 
your men from their power." But did this induce our of- 
ficers to surrender? No : neither will I surrender, as my 
opponent wishes me. I do not fear him, nor the hissing 
of his Indians ! 

He tells us, if my friends clap, he cannot be answerable 
for the conduct of his. How does my opponent suppose 
that I can control his Indians, or govern men whom I ne- 
ver saw ? — [Interrupted by the Moderator. — Resumed.'] — I 
wish the moderators would keep their seats, and not take 
part with my opponent. — [Hissing.] — I consider it unfair 
for one party to answer for another. I am obliged, more- 
over, to hear praying and hissing out of the same mouth. 
For my part, I would as soon hear the Universalists pray 
as hiss, and hiss as pray : I neither fear their hissing, nor 
desire their praying, it is all one to me. It reminds me 
of the fable of the Traveller and Satyr : 

" On a very cold day, a traveller came to the hut of a 
satyr, and on his entering, he put his fingers to his mouth 
and blew upon them ; on being asked why he did so, he 
replied, to warm them. The satyr having heated some 
porridge, presented him with a bowl of it, upon which the 
traveller began again to blow ; being asked why he now 
blew, he replied, to cool it ! The satyr immediately drove 
him from his hut, declaring he would shelter none who 
blew hot and cold with the same breath." [laugh.] 

But I have been much used to such characters ; there- 
fore I do not mind them ; and to hardships of all kinds ; 
therefore I will not complain ; and if I do occasionally 
wander and tell of some of the occurrences of life, which 
may sometimes produce laughter, it cannot be very easily 
suppressed. 

My opponent has no objection to pray with any one, be- 
cause his doctrine embraces every one in the same great 
net, and he conceives the prayer, or jabbering, of a sin- 
ner, is as good, and as acceptable, as the prayer of the 
righteous, which " availeth much :" and it is as easy 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 8i 

for them to pray, as it is for them to laugh or hiss ! — Up- 
on the whole, I think there has been as much decorum as 
could be expected from so public an assembly, and fully as 
much as such a place requires. — An individual of his de- 
nomination has, I understand, given up prayer altogether, 
and says that he who is always occupied in prayer, is fit 
only to work on the canals. But the true principle upon 
which prayer is founded, we deny that my opponent or his 
followers possess : the difference between a sincere and 
acceptable supplication, and the prayer I was asked to join 
in, is as great as the two powers which the satyr suppos- 
ed the traveller possessed when he blew hot and cold with 
the same breath : for unless he be influenced by the grace 
of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, no man can 
pray aright; but these divine requisites my opponent thinks 
entirely unnecessary. 

Under these circumstances, and with these feelings, how 
can I unite with a man in prayer who rejects the grace 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the influence of the Holy Spi- 
rit ; with one who denies the very essentials of Christian- 
ity; and yet he complains that this morning I refused him my 
hand when he offered his, as well as that I refused to join 
him in prayer. Truly I did : for he considers himself so 
good that he can pray without any assistance. — I feel my- 
self such a sinner that I can do nothing without the Spirit 
enable me. It put me too much in mind of the pharisee 
and the publican, which you will find recorded in Luke, 
xviii. 10 — 14. There is a great difference, you will ob- 
serve, between these two. Another observation with re- 
gard to the last subject is, he intreated me to join him in 
prayer to a being whom he declares is cruel, vindictive, 
and revengeful, that is, the God whom we worship ; for 
evidently, he and I do not worship the same God. — Now 
I dare say he would have no objection to our praying for 
him ; but even this, I could not conscientiously do : for 
there is a sin we are told for which we should not pray, 
I mean for forgiveness, of this very thing which my oppo- 
nent does : viz. deny the influence of the Holy Spirit. He 
requests that I should pray with him according to his prin- 
ciples as far as we can agree : this I also refused, and 
which I am not ashamed to declare, — I have too much 
conscience to deny the truth ; for I am a plain, straight 
forward Kentuckian, and what I have once said, I do not 
wish to recede from, as my opponent does. I am fully aware 
of all this eager desire to pray before you $ and perhaps 

11 



82 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

in his closet he does not know what prayer is : in fact, it 
is my firm belief, that any one who holds his principles, 
will be induced to give up praying altogether — as one of 
his persuasion in the western country has already, with 
more sincerity, done. The reason my opponent has hy- 
pocritically asked me to pray with him, is evident : it is 
to throw all the odium of a want of charity upon me, be- 
cause I will not unite with one who openly has avowed 
such infidel sentiments : viz. that he has no need of the 
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved ; and he wants 
to make himself appear as a meek Christian, possessing 
charity and much brotherly love, while the poison of ser- 
pents is under his tongue ; and the very expressions of an- 
ti-ehristian, for which he rails out against us, for having 
applied to him, he charges us with in his Lectures, page 
198, " I choose, therefore, in this lecture, to strike at the 
very foundation, or main pillars, on which the cruel and 
unmerciful doctrine of endless misery is supposed to rest ; 
and if these can be removed, the whole superstructure 
must fall to the ground." — We here find that the people, 
upon whom he calls to pray for him, are represented by 
him as being cruel and unmerciful ; and yet he complains, 
that after he has intreated us, we will not pray for him. 
How can we join with one who is so inconsistent in his 
doctrines and professions ? And again in another passage, 
page 228, he says, " that in the opinion of the writer, 
which opinion is founded upon the evidence herein adduc- 
ed, all the doctrines of men (embracing every sentiment, 
tenet, or denomination) which limit the grace of God to a 
part of the sinful race of man, are but the unchaste children 
of her who sitteth upon a " scarlet coloured beast, full of 
names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns ; and 
upon her forehead is a name written, Mystery, Babylon 
the great, the mother of harlots, and abominations of 
the earth J" Before the anger shall rise so high in the 
breast of the reader, as to induce him to break off and read 
no further, &c." He was very sensible at the time, that 
lie had given occasion to excite the anger of any but chris- 
tians ; but it was against them he levelled his shaft : it 
has, however, lost its effect. 

I intended to have let these things rest, till he com- 
pelled me to bring them forward ; but since he has done 
so, I cannot but mention my surprise that those whom he 
represents as being so unchaste, are the very ones that he 
calls upon to pray for him. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 88 

I have often heard of dancing beasts, but never heard 
of praying beasts before, [laugh] Yes, it is upon these, 
the praying beasts, and the deceived worshippers, and the 
unchaste children, that he calls to pray for him : and the 
God whom he represents as an arbitrary, vindictive, and 
cruel tyrant, he wishes us (the beasts) to unite in prayer 
to : but he can pray to any God, and with any peo- 
ple, to suit his own purposes. — Now you will please to 
take notice, that it is not against one sect he was writing, 
and whom he was saluting with the titles of unchaste chil- 
dren, and beasts, &c. but against all Episcopalians, 
Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, and " all 
the doctrines of men, (embracing every sentiment, tenet, 
or denomination,") [nothing can be more explicit than this] 
" which limit the grace of God to apart of the sinful race 
of man, are but the unchaste children of her who sitteth 
upon a " scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphe- 
my, having seven heads and ten horns: and upon her fore- 
head is a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the 
mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth !" And 
yet these are the very children which my opponent wish- 
es to unite with in sweet and social worship. I again al- 
lege as my reason, that these sentiments are anti-christian, 
and, therefore, I cannot unite with him, — He asks a child 
of the mother of harlots, a child of the great whore of Ba- 
bylon, to join him in prayer, to these very different be- 
ings, one true, the other false, (for they cannot both be 
right,) and why does he ? Why is he so earnest in wish- 
ing you to notice my refusal ? That he may have the cre- 
dit of having made the proposition, and of representing 
me as anti-christian, because I could not conscientiously 
accept of it. 

My opponent says, in continuation of the above passage 
quoted before, " Before the anger shall rise so high in the 
breast of the reader, &c." In truth, I see no cause of an- 
ger, but rather of pity, or perhaps contempt! — He goes 
on, and shows you very plainly whom he meant by the 
beast, namely, Prince James, as you may observe on the 
same page, just below, which I will read. " And consi- 
der well who is there pointed out by the « beast," and al- 
so by the great whore that sitteth upon many waters : with 
whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication." 
Consider, also, at the same time, how natural it must have 
been for " The Most High and Mighty Prince James, by 
the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ire- 



84 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

land, Defender of the Faith, &c." (according to the pom- 
pous title he bore,) under whose inspection our common bi- 
ble was translated, to introduce, if possible, such a kind 
of faith as would keep his subjects in the greatest fear ima- 
ginable, that with the more ease he might support his 
crown : i. e. by making the monarchical and ecclesiasti- 
cal powers unite and combine together 5 I say, let these 
things be well considered, and neither the literal nor the 
mystical Babylon can easily be mistaken. Yet, rest as- 
sured, M her plagues shall come in one day ;" and none 
will either mourn or bewail her just judgment, although 
accompanied with great torments, except it be those who 
have made themselves rich by her merchandize, or who 
have " drank of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." 
— O, ye children of mystical Babylon, hearken and be 
wise ; " Come out of her that ye be not partakers of her 
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." 

When a man gets warm in discussion, he is apt to for- 
get himself, and if he be advocating that which is false, the 
truth will slip out unawares. — He has told you that none 
shall suffer eternal punishment, and yet he says, as I have 
read in your hearing, " that none shall either mourn or 
bewail her just judgment, except it be those, &c." and he 
calls upon the unchaste children of the mystical Babylon, 
** to come out of her, that they receive not of her plagues." 
How wonderfully compassionate he is to the "deceived wor- 
shippers of the beast ! !" It is a false compassion, merely to 
excite your sympathy. His observation with regard to 
Prince James, requires some attention, he says as quoted 
above. " Consider, also, how natural it must have been 
for Prince James, under whose inspection the bible was 
translated, to introduce, if possible, such kind of faith as 
would keep his subjects in the greatest fear imaginable," 
&c. It puts me in mind of what he has told you : viz. that 
he has so many translations ; and of course he must under- 
stand them all,, and know more about them than the seven- 
ty translators who were appointed by that Prince for the 
special purpose of giving a faithful translation, and who 
knew a hundred fold more of what they were doing, than 
my learned opponent and all his followers put together, to 
help him ; and had it been possible that they could have 
heard him, they would surely have pitied him. 

I suppose my opponent thinks, as I have come from the 
back woods, that 1 have not recovered from the fatigues 
of my journey, and am not yet awake ,* or perhaps he 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 8£ 

thinks this, which is equally ridiculous, that we in the back 
woods never see a book, nor do we know how to read one, 
because we are laymen, and not like your sensible ministers 
here, who have large libraries, and many translations, with 
the mere sound of which, he thinks to confound us, poor, 
ignorant Kentuckians ! He puts me in mind of a country 
pedlar who opens his pack of wares to astonish your eyes 
with his bobbins, tapes, pins, needles, &c. [laugh.'] The 
truth is, we are not quite so ignorant in the back countries 
as he may suppose ; and although we cannot boast of such 
numerous translations, we are not without those that are 
necessary. — I have, myself, a miniature copy of the New 
Testament in Greek, presented to me by a friend of mine, 
a lawyer, in New Orleans. I have most of the transla- 
tions, (which he has told you, as a mighty curiosity, he pos- 
sesses), and those which I have not, I have seen. But 
did I ever think of coming here and bringing with me such 
trash, to prove a scriptural doctrine? No: the word of 
God is sufficient for me ; and it is a little singular, that 
my opponent rejects part of the scriptures as doubtful and 
uncertain evidence, and yet these new translations, he tells 
you, are generally received, and of undoubted authority. 
But, after all he said about his translations, which he re- 
peated so often, over and over again, he took care to tell 
you very little about their contents. — All these transla- 
tions are in my favour ; but he did not tell you this : he 
did not tell you they would militate against him. No: he 
would have you believe that they are all in his favour; 
when the truth is, they are all in mine. 

In speaking of Judas, you must have observed a won- 
derful difference between my opponent's opinion and mine. 
There is also some difference in his representing what I 
said. He altered the expression a little. I said, that if 
my opponent's doctrine were true, that it was good for 
Judas to be born, as he went to heaven before his master 
whom he betrayed; and that the Lord Jesus had declared 
that it had been good for that man if he had not been born: 
and I further stated that my opponent had said, that in 
the original Greek it would not admit of this translation, 
namely, " that it would have been good for that man," 
i. e. the traitor Judas, "if he had never been born," 
or if he had never had an existence. Now he has affirm^ 
ed that it will not bear this construction ; and I have af- 
firmed the contrary, and by the same negative quality 
which my opponent is so partial to, he declares that if Jn- 



36 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

das would have escaped eternal punishment by never hav- 
ing been born, of course it would have been good for him. 
Who is there that will not admit this to be in my favour, 
except my opponent ? But sometimes, when they get hold 
of Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, and learn a little Greek, 
enough, somehow or another, to get up something which 
they call a new translation, in their great zeal to make 
nonsense of the bible, and to turn to ridicule the Word of 
God, they speak the truth, though much against their will. 
For the way my opponent, or some one else for him, has 
expressed the words in relation to Judas, it contains the 
same doctrine, but more correctly expressed according to 
the Greek, and according to our language. The truth is, 
the only part of his observations which I would designate 
by the name of criticism, is that on the word good. But 
this puts me in mind of some other learned translators who 
have made similar criticisms ; one of whom, in Scotland, 
is noticed by the Reviewers, he having to translate the 
Greek word «,»sxo? angelos, an angel, thought it must be 
something great ; he, therefore, translates it the great ea- 
gle, [langh] 

A criticism somewhat similar, is made by the noto- 
rious Tom Paine, not altogether unknown, I presume, to 
my opponent. He, meeting with the word glass, in his 
reading of the scriptures, says, with wonderful penetra- 
tion, it is not possible they could have been written at so 
remote a period, and therefore considered them spurious ; 
because, forsooth, glass was not known in those days. — 
He might have been reminded, however, that the word in 
the original, does not signify glass, but something as 
transparent as glass, and used for the same purpose. So 
much for such learned critics! — and this very criticism, 
which my opponent has made, may be found in the exer- 
cises of any school- boy. No intelligent man would have 
harped so long on such a trifle. Another observation, 
which my opponent has made, we will here notice. He 
says "there is no law in revelation which requires the 
absolute and eternal punishment of the wicked. But if 
there is, he calls upon me to produce it, or else to acknowl- 
edge that there is none." This does not require a great 
deal of attention. 

I have already endeavoured to prove from the attributes 
of God, that his justice requires that the penalty due to 
the violated law, must be paid by a substitute, or the sin- 
ner must be condemned to an absolutely eternal punish- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 87 

ment ; for the sinner cannot pay the debt himself, and God 
is too pure, too holy and too just a being, to suffer iniquity 
to pass unpunished, or to suffer anything impure to enter 
heaven. " For without holiness no man can see the Lord." 
If the attributes of God, as I have shown, require the end- 
less punishment of the wicked, of course the law does. — 
When I was proving to you, from the scripture, that his 
holiness, his purity and his justice, did require it, my op- 
ponent tells you I was doing nothing but reading my little 
book; and expressing my witticisms upon his translations. 
The fable of the satyr and the traveller, which I quoted 
before, never was more applicable to any man than it is to 
him. 

Let me do what I can, it is impossible to please him, 
unless I were to give up the argument altogether — let him 
have his own way and follow him in it. But this I should 
be very sorry to do ; though I should be certain of gaining 
his favour ; I should forfeit the favour of that God whom 
I serve ; and any thing short of my giving up the point 
to him, will not please him, therefore we must be content 
as we are. 

My opponent will now stand up and fill his half hour 
telling you about my wonderful book, which he says en- 
grosses all my attention, and though he tells you he has 
nothing to talk about, he takes care that he will not give 
me his thirty minutes ; but would rather fill them up 
talking about the book which is composed of thirty pages 
of this size, [holding up the book], five of which are un- 
written, the remainder contain texts and minutes of my 
opponent's argaments, which I have made; the whole 
formed of two and a half sheets of common sized letter 
paper; (a mighty volume to engage my or my opponent's 
attention truly ;) together with some heads of arguments 
which it was necessary for a layman to make, when argu- 
ing with such a learned man, who has given to the world, 
the Lord knows how many translations, and I conceive 
that one, who has no more knowledge than a layman, has 
an equal right, if he get some schoolmaster to write a book 
for him, to read it. 

10§ o'clock. 

Mr,Kneeland, — My much respected friends and hearers, 
I am extremely sorry for the predicament in which you 
are still placed, Instead of your being presented with the 



88 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

arguments upon which my opponent predicates his doc- 
trine of the absolute eternal punishment of the wicked, he 
lias occupied the whole of his time, when last up, in at- 
tempting to justify, in your minds, his conduct in not 
joining in prayer with me, and if possible, to prejudice 
you against me and my writings. You are to judge for 
yourselves how well he has succeeded. 

I was, indeed, surprised, that in place of coming to the 
point in dispute, he was permitted to talk about pins and 
needles, and such trifling things as no one would have ima- 
gined any man, who had any respect for the dignity of 
his character, would have introduced in this place, and on 
an occasion like the present. But you have been present- 
ed with a specimen of his talents and his disposition — and 
of the nature of his discourse, when not confined to his 
book I In place of thus deviating from it, to no good pur- 
pose, he had better, unless he is willing to come to the 
point in dispute, continue on in his reading, and if his 
manuscript be really as small as he says it is, he might 
certainly have got through with it by this time, and he 
would have been enabled to take part in the argument. 
Had he wished to have done this, I would have been wil- 
ling on my part to have given him my portion of the time; 
but as he feels disposed even to spend his own minutes in 
sarcasms and witticisms on my writings, which have no- 
thing to do with the discussion, I do not now feel disposed 
so to do, and it is for you to judge whether I shall be able 
to entertain you better during the remainder of my half 
hour. 

Our time ought not, certainly, whether we intend to dis- 
cuss the question in dispute or not, to be passed in misre- 
presentations ; and I feel sorry I have to charge my oppo- 
nent with such conduct. Whether it be intentional or not, 
he is best able to determine : — such is certainly the fact. 
— He told you this morning that I requested him to pray 
for me : this I never did ; but merely suggested to him the 
propriety of opening and closing this religious discussion 
with prayer. I thought that he might have required aid 
of his maker for himself, not that I thought it would be 
necessary that he should pray for me, though at the same 
time, 1 have no objection that he, or any other individual 
professing Christianity, should pray for me. 

My opponent finds much fault with certain parts of my 
lectures which speak against certain anti-christian doc- 
trines ; which expressions he takes to himself and to his 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 89 

brethren of like faith. These lectures are in print, and 
before the world, and you can read for yourselves, and 
will find, that in the passage referred to, there are no per- 
sonal reflections. I will just read the passage, which will 
be found in my Lectures, page 228 : " In the opinion of 
the writer, which opinion is founded on the evidence here- 
in adduced, all the doctrines of men, (embracing every sen- 
timent, tenet, or denomination,) which limit the grace of 
God to a part of the sinful race of man, are but the unchaste 
children? 9 &c. Now it is the doctrines, not the individu- 
als, who may, probably, very honestly and candidly be- 
lieve in those doctrines, that I here point to as i( the un- 
chaste children of" (what may be denominated mystical 
Baby Ion J " the mother of harlots, and abominations of the 
earth." If my opponent really thinks that I am speaking 
of persons when I am treating of doctrines, it shows that 
he has read these lectures with about the same attention 
that he has read the scriptures, not for the sake of ascer- 
taining the truth, but that he might catch at something by 
which to support a sinking cause. 

He still intimates that what he said yesterday in rela- 
tion to the incorrectness of the note in the new translation 
of f he Testament, on the twenty-sixth Matthew, 24th 
verse, he can prove. — The Testament is before the public* 
and you can obtain all the information requisite to a cor- 
rect understanding of the passage ; and if it shall be found 
that my opponent is correct in his assertion, I give up the 
argument.— The note itself I have no objection to assume 
as my own, (though it is not all mine, but the latter clause 
only,) and I maintain the correctness of what I there assert. 

In the note I have said that the original text is ambigu- 
ous : « It is literally, * Good were it for him, if that man 
were not born.' It will admit of the following construc- 
tions, i Good were it for him (the Son of man) if that man 
(the traitor) were not born.' Or, ' Good were it for him 
(the traitor) if that man (the Son of man) were not born.' 
Or, (what is more probably the true sense,) * Good were 
it for him, (the traitor) if that man, (the traitor) were not 
born.' Or, lastly, (which is nearly the same in sense,) 
4 Good were it for him, (the traitor) if he were not born 
that man.' But, ' Good were it for that man (the traitor) 
if he had never been born,' (that is, never existed) is a 
construction that the words will not possibly bear." — To 
prove this statement true, I have only to refer to a pas- 
sage where similar expressions occur in the original. It 

12 



90 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

is recorded in the book of Acts, chapter seven, that Ste- 
phen made an address to his accusers, in which he gives a 
history of all the great things which God had done for his 
people in former times, from the time when he appeared 
unto " our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, 
before he dwelt in Charran ;" — when he comes to speak of 
Moses, he says, "at which time Moses was born," " Ev 
£ k*i$w iymyAyt Maiwc," where the same verb iym»Qh transla- 
ted " was born," occurs in the text in reference to Judas, 
"Ei ovk typvtiBit o av6/^a7rc ? ,' , excepting that in the one, the idi- 
om of our language requires that it should be rendered in 
the indicative, and in the other, being preceded by the 
conjunction u if, in the subjunctive mood. — Now what is 
the difference between these two passages? The only dif- 
ference is, that the latter has the modifying particles « 
translated if, and the negative cu* not, which, however, 
do not alter the meaning of the verb, which is precisely 
the same in both. Now if the verb «>w»0» in the former, 
express the natural birth of Moses, by what mode of rea- 
soning can we cause ovk tym/&* in the latter, to signify ab- 
solute non-existence ? — That these statements are literally 
true, I appeal to our judges and to all learned men. If I 
am wrong let me be contradicted — Thus, you see, ends 
the discussion in relation to the dispute on the meaning 
of the passage in reference to Judas. Even my opponent 
dare not dispute the correctness of my statement. [Here 
Mr. Kennedy, the second of Mr. MCalla, one of the bench, 
arose and commenced some remarks, but was silenced by 
Mr.M'Calla.] — You see, my hearers, that his friend would 
have looked into the passage, but my opponent shrinks 
from the decision ; and you now see how we stand on the 
subject to which I have called his % attention, and on which 
I am perfectly willing to rest this discussion. — I am not 
ashamed to appear before tills audience as the advocate for 
the final salvation of even Judas, and if I am not able to 
prove that we have the same reason for believing in his 
final and eternal happiness, as we have to believe in the 
salvation of Peter or of Paul, I must give up to my oppo- 
nent, and acknowledge lie has gained his argument. — I 
must have the same hope for the salvation of Judas as I 
have for my own — or my faith in universal salvation is 
without foundation. 

Could 1 not prove from the testimony of the scriptures 
that Judas is finally to be saved, I tell you, my hearers, I 
could not so boldly advocate the doctrine of Universal re- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 91 

demption ; — upon the salvation of Judas, therefore, I rest 
the truth of my doctrine. Judas, we acknowledge, was 
guilty, — he was a traitor — hut show me the law which re- 
quires that he should be endlessly miserable, that is, pun- 
ished to an absolute eternity for what he did. My oppo- 
nent says he infers this from the attributes of God. But 
has he proved from these attributes that there is any thing 
in the character of the God of Love which is opposed to 
the salvation of Judas ? This he has not attempted to do. 
— He says, also, that divine justice requires his eternal 
misery : but what proof has he given you of this ? Simply 
his own bare assertion. 

I am willing to rest the salvation on the plain testimo- 
ny of God. This testimony, it is true, declares that " by 
transgression Judas fell, that he might go to his own 
place," Acts i. 25 ; but my opponent must prove that this 
place is a place of endless misery. — W hat says Jesus to 
his disciples " ye which have followed me in the regene- 
ration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his 
glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel." Matt. xix. 28. Let the time re- 
ferred to here, be when it may, the promise was made to 
the twelve when Judas constituted one of them. It will 
not do to say that the promise can be fulfilled by supply- 
ing the place of Judas by Matthias, who was elected after 
the ascension of our Lord. The promise was made to that 
twelve to whom Christ spake, " ye who have followed 
me," &c. and that the testimonies should be true, to them 
it must be fulfilled. 

If my opponent feels disposed to dispute all this, he is 
at liberty, and 1 hope I shall be able to meet his arguments. 

My opponent says that " without grace can no one be 
saved," and he has also been pleased to inform you that 
his opponent has declared that we have no need of grace. 
This is not true : I have no where made such an assertion. 
I am as firm a believer in the necessity of saving grace as 
my opponent : all I said, and I again repeat it, was, that 
man had no need of grace to save him from a punishment 
which God did not intend ever to inflict upon him. Does 
this prove that there is no need of grace ? The scriptures 
no where promise a salvation from a merited punishment, 
but from sin, and from sin alone. 

The scriptures declare, and experience proves, " That 
God will render unto every man according to his deeds : 
To them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek 



92 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

for glory and honour, and immortality, eternal life ; but 
unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, 
but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribula- 
tion and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, 
of the Jew first and also of the Gentile, but glory, honour 
and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first 
and also to the Gentile : for there is no respect of persons 
with God." Rom. ii. 6 — 11. Now this applies to my op- 
ponent as well as to myself. It does not say that God 
will render unto them indignation, tribulation and anguish 
conditionally, that is to say, if they do not repent, or if 
some other being has not suffered in their place, or if the 
righteousness of another shall not be imputed to them, 
" but unto every soul of man that doeth evil." Now do 
we not stand in need of saving grace? Yes: not, however, 
to save man from deserved punishment, but to save him 
from his sin, that he may no more come into condemnation. 

It is said of Christ by the Spirit of God, (if the account 
be correct, which my opponent will not deny,) " Thou 
shalt call his name Jesus : for he shall save his people 
from their sins :" Matt. i. 21: not that he shall save them 
from the just punishment of their sins. — Sin is a trans- 
gression of the divine law ; and salvation is necessary to 
save us from transgression ; and when we are saved from 
transgression, and made to be obedient to the law, then 
have we no need of punishment. The law never punishes 
those who live in obedience to its precepts. The scriptures 
promise salvation to no one, except on the ground of a sal- 
vation from sin : and if my opponent can prove that any 
will sin in eternity, then will I admit that the sinner will 
be punished in eternity ; for where there is sin there must 
be suffering ; and if lie can further prove that sin will be 
endless in its duration, I then admit that misery also will 
be " absolutely eternal," — But I read, that Jesus the Mes- 
siah was anointed "To finish transgression and to make 
an end of sin," Dan. ix. 24 ; and when he shall have ac- 
complished his mission, and an end is made of sin, then al- 
so the consequences of sin will cease. 

There is nothing in the whole history of Judas that 
should cause us to suppose he will never be saved. If sal- 
vation be predicated on repentance, we have the same evi- 
dence, yea, if possible, better evidence, of the repentance 
of Judas than we have of the repentance of Peter. The 
one betrays his master, the other denies him : — but what 
does Judas when he finds his master is in the hands of his 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 93 

enemies ? Does he, like Peter, cowardly deny him with im- 
precations and curses ? No, he comes forward to the ene- 
mies of his Lord, and declares that he had sinned in that 
he " had betrayed innocent blood/' 

He acknowledges* and repents of his guilt, and hears 
honourable testimony to the innocence of Jesus. But the 
priests, having obtained their end in the apprehension of 
our Lord, care not for this confession, but, they say, "what 
is that to us ? see thou to that." Does Judas rest 
contented, saying, well, I have got the money, and what 
I have done cannot now be undone? No — he despises his 
ill-gotten gain ; " he cast down the pieces of silver" at 
the feet of the priests, and went out, and " was suffocated 
with grief." I know that our common version of the scrip- 
tures, says, he "went and hanged himself;" but it is the 
part of my opponent to prove that this is the meaning of 
the original — which he cannot do — how is the idea of his 
having hanged himself reconcileable with the account giv- 
en in the book of Acts, of the death of Judas ? " Falling 
headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bow- 
els gushed out." Acts i. 13. The learned Mr. Wake- 
field, who was no Universal 1st, translates the passage — 
" Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple, 
and withdrew : and after his departure was choaked with 
anguish :" and that excessive grief will produce this ef- 
fect, all who know any thing of the effects of the passions 
on the body, must acknowledge. 

I would now ask, have we as much evidence of the sin- 
cerity of the repentance of those who come forward in our 
days, and declare themselves to be such great sinners in 
the sight of God and man ? Do they make restitution in 
those instances in which they have injured their brother? 
I do sincerely wish, that we had the same evidence of the 
sincere repentance of christians, in our day, as we have 
of the sincerity of Judas, when "he repented him, and 
brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests 
and elders." Matt, xxvii. 35. 

Let my opponent now, if he feels himself able, meet me 
on this ground, or else go to that I proposed yesterday — 
show me the law, that requires eternal misery as its pe- 
nalty, and I have done : — for whatever is the penalty of 
the law, be assured it will be carried into execution. 



94 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

11 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — You have again been entertained, my 
friends, with a long preamble concerning this little book, 
which proves a sore annoyance to my opponent; and he 
tells you I had better continue reading it until I get through, 
and he will relinquish his time to me till I do get through 
with it. But has he shown any disposition to do this by 
his actions? No : he confines himself to words, and he 
takes good care he will not give me even one minute of his 
time. Why does he not do as an opponent of mine did on 
a former occasion ? He actually did give me his super- 
fluous time ; when he had nothing to say, or to reply to, 
he sat down. My present opponent will talk about doing 
so : Why then does he not do it, if he be in such haste to 
hear my book through as he says he is. 

I have one or two remarks to make, before I return to 
the argument, respecting some observations made by my 
opponent. He has stated that I, his opponent, found much 
fault with certain parts of his book which speak against 
certain anti-christian doctrines ; but, he says, that you 
will find on reference to the passages, that they contain 
" no personal reflections :" and would have you believe 
that by the unchaste children of the mystical Babylon, he 
means only the doctrines which we christians severally 
hold, and not the individuals who hold them. Now, who 
does not sec the drift of all this sophistry ? I will not re- 
mark on the elegance of his expressions, but will pass on 
to show you, that if he meant this, I do not think he said 
so, that is, if I understood the tenor of his language. I 
will again read you the extract that you may judge for 
yourselves: Lectures, page 228, "In the opinion of the 
writer," that is, in my opponent's opinion, " which opin- 
ion is founded on the evidence herein adduced, all the doc- 
trines of men, (embracing every sentiment, tenet, or de- 
nomination,) which limit the grace of God to a part of the 
sinful race of man, are but the unchaste children of her 
who sitteth upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of 
blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns ; and upon 
her forehead is a name written, Mystery, Babylon the 
great, the mother of harlots, and abominations of the 
earth!" Now, can any of you be so blinded by his sophis- 
try, as not to see clearly what is here meant ? Do any of 
you suppose, when we are speaking of a denomination, 
sect, or party, that we mean the doctrines or principles 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 95 

which they hold ? No. But the individuals who hold 
those sentiments, as much so as when we speak of a church, 
we do not mean the walls which compose the building, hut 
the members who form the church : and jet, my opponent 
would endeavour to persuade you that he intended no per- 
sonalities by his expressions : — I hope now he and his sup- 
porters, will be silent about my severity ; if either of us 
has been severe, it is surely himself; for, he is not satis- 
fied with attacking me, but he attacks my people also, 
like Hainan of old, who, in the days of the good king 
Ah asuerus, was not satisfied with wishing Mordecai to be 
hung, upon a gallows fifty cubits high, but, he extended 
his desire of vengeance to the annihilation of the whole 
race of God's chosen people ; the retributive justice of 
God, however, caused him to fall into the very snare he had 
prepared for another, and he was hung upon the very gallows 
he had prepared for his opponent : thus does our God cause 
the wickedness of the wicked to fall upon his own head. 
And yet, my opponent would have you believe no such 
tiling is meant, as personal reflection, when, the truth is, 
he not only attacks me and my brethren, with whom I am 
connected, but every individual who holds thesacred truth 
of the absolutely eternal punishment of the wicked; there- 
fore, while he slanders one he slanders all. 

He does not seem to approve of my comparing his great 
and learned translations, which he so highly recommended 
to your notice, to a pedlar's pack of tapes, and pins, and 
needles : but, in truth, it put me in mind of one, and I 
could not help telling you so. 

My opponent insinuated yesterday, that I came all the 
way from Kentucky to teach the Philadelphians theology, 
as if my brethren, in the ministry, were unable to defend 
themselves against the advocates of Judas, and all the 
children of his descendants ; when, the truth is, my breth- 
ren thought them too contemptible to notice ! But, I felt 
myself called in providence to oppose them, and for that 
purpose I now stand before you. 

There is one text which my opponent brought forward 
concerning the fate of Judas, Matt. xxvi. 24, " It had 
been good for that man if he had not been born ;" and he 
appealed to the Moderators, to the interference of whom, 
I objected, not, as he says, because I wished to " shrink 
from their decision," for he knows very well that they 
would have given it against him ; but, because I do not. 
wish the Moderators to interfere, not even mv own se~ 



96 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

cond. I wish them to let us alone, and let him say what 
he pleases, and to allow me the same privilege. It was 
for this reason, when one stood up, that I stopped him. — 
He did not, however, stop his Moderator yesterday, when 
he interrupted me. 

You can easily draw a contrast between us, it requires 
but very little discernment. He wishes to have all the as- 
sistance from his party that he can get, while I would 
rather stand alone, for truth is ever able to combat error 
without any auxiliaries, or foreign aid. 

I will now proceed with that evidence in favour of my 
part of the proposition, which is drawn from my argu- 
ment, wherein I contrasted the character, standing, and 
the future destiny of the righteous and the wicked. I 
showed to you, by this mode of argument, that believers 
were contrasted with unbelievers — the good were con- 
trasted with the bad — the righteous with the wicked — the 
just with the unjust — and in that state they will ever re- 
main; as in Rev. xxii. 11, where the angel, speaking of 
the end of the world, says, " He that is unjust, let him be 
unjust still : and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still : 
and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still : and 
he that is holy, let him be holy still." But my opponent 
says no ! he has represented that they are all on a footing, 
both in this world and the next: but you know the scrip- 
tures do not represent them so. Righteous Job, the good 
Asaph, and others, say that the wicked have their good 
things in this life, and that the righteous suffer more here 
on earth than the very worst of men ; and who does not 
know this to be a fact ? for we experience it every day. — 
Again, my opponent says that although some are repre- 
sented as being good and bad now, it argues nothing ; for 
we have not shown any thing contrary to their all being 
good at last ! Now, is this statement true ? Have I not 
shown you, what the angel saith to John, " He that is un- 
just, let him be unjust still ; and he that is filthy, let him 
be filthy still." But this, he says, is not contrary to their 
all being good at last ! Again, I represented, by con- 
trast, their standing, as some were written in the book of 
life and some were not; that some are bastards and some 
sons, &c. I also proved it from the contrast of their 
destiny, as some are represented as heirs of the promise, 
and others the sons of perdition ; some the objects of mer- 
cy, and others the objects of wrath ; &c. And, to show, 
assuredly, that the wicked will not go to heaven with the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 97 

righteous, I quoted the passage just referred to, Rev. xxii. 
11, where it is said, at the resurrection, " some are tore* 
main unjust still, and must remain so for ever and ever, 
let my opponent tell you what he pleases to the contrary, 
as we read of no change after that time. 

I contend that we are not in the dark with regard to 
what will take place at the day of judgment, it is suffi- 
ciently revealed to us, to induce those who will believe, to 
escape it. 

It is clearly shown to us in the word of God, what is to 
be the final destiny of man ; thus, in Matt. xxv. 46, where 
it says, " And these shall go away into everlasting pun- 
ishment, but the righteous into life eternal ;" and yet, my 
opponent will tell you that this has no reference to a fu- 
ture state ; and, he observed, that the end of the world, 
in a popular sense, does not mean the end of time ; in proof 
of this, he quoted the passage where Paul says, Heb. ix, 
26, " But now, once in the end of the world, hath he ap- 
peared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself ;" and 
this, my opponent tells you, has no reference to the end of 
time. He says so — but had I like him, quoted but one 
solitary passage to prove my doctrine correct, he would, 
perhaps, have resorted to the same quibbling to have set 
it aside, as 1 before told you, Tom Paine did with the 
word glass. 

But my opponent must produce some more solid objec- 
tion — some stronger argument, than the mere quibbling 
about a word, before he, or his colleagues, can set aside 
this doctrine of divine truth, namely, the absolutely eternal 
punishment of the wicked. Again, we showed you that 
some are to be happy, while others are to be tormented — 
and, between whom, a great gulf is to be fixed, which can- 
not be passed; and, although the wicked should endeavour 
to get over it, it will be impossible; all passage over it 
exists but in the chimerical visions of the traitor Judas, 
and his friends and descendants. 

Before I pass on to another part of my argument, I would 
just notice the observation of my opponent, that he does 
not know how to consume his half hour, and that I had 
given him nothing to do, nothing to answer, although I 
have brought so many and such strong passages against 
him; and, he would make you believe, that I wish to con- 
sume your time and my strength to no purpose ; but, of 
this, you arc to judge. 

13 



m THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

I will now produce those negative passages of scripture^ 
which tend to prove that there will he no end to the tor- 
ment of the wicked. You will bear in mind, my friends, 
that this is what, according to the first clause of the pro- 
position, I have undertaken to prove, namely, the " ab- 
solutely eternal punishment of the wicked :" and my op- 
ponent proposes to prove the two latter clauses, namely, 
tljat the punishment of the wicked is "only temporal in 
this world, for their good ; and to be succeeded by eternal 
happiness after death. "You will observe, that there is as 
wide a difference betwixt us as there is between the rich 
man and Lazarus. If, therefore, I can prove from abun- 
dant passages of the scriptures, that their punishment is 
to have no end, I defy my opponent, or any other infidel 
Universalist, to prove the contrary ; and, since he finds 
so much fault with my quoting his sentiments from his 
book, of which, as I before observed, he appears to be get- 
ting ashamed ; I will not quote from it any more ; for it 
has become so cheap it is of no service to either party ; 
it would, therefore, be folly to take any further notice of 
it ; we will, therefore, proceed to prove from the negative 
testimony of scripture, that, as there will be no end to 
life eternal, so there will be no end to eternal punishment. 
We will, first, prove it from the eternity of God — 2nd, 
from the eternity of Christ's kingdom ; — and, 3dly, from 
the duration of the happiness of the saints : and from the 
same mode of expression being used when applied to the 
wicked, we will prove their eternal punishment. And, 

First, Of the eternity of God : Ps. cii. 26, 27, " They 
shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall 
wax old like a garment ; as a vesture shalt thou change 
them, and they shall be changed : but thou art the same, 
and they years shall have no end." How could you bet- 
ter prove, or better express the eternity of the Creator, 
than by saying, his " years shall have no end." 

Secondly, Of the eternity of Christ's kingdom, the 
scriptures speak in a similar manner. Dan. vii. 14, 
u And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a 
kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should 
serve him : his dominion is an everlasting dominion^ 
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which 
shall not be destroyed." And, my friends, if God say it 
shall not pass away, who shall be able to destroy it ? 
Again, the prophet Isaiah says, ix. 7, " Of the increase 
of his government and peace, there shall be no end." 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 99 

Thirdly, Of the duration of the happiness of the saints. 
In the same manner it is said there shall be no end to the 
happiness of the saints. Thus, 1 Pet. v. 4, "And when 
the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown, 
of glory that fadeth not away." This proves that there 
is an eternal crown which the saints are to receive. Pe- 
ter does not tell you all are to receive it, but my opponent 
does, saint or sinner, all are alike to him. Again, 1 Cor. 
ix. 25, Paul says, "And every man that striveth for the 
mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to 
obtain a corruptible crown ; but we an incorruptible." 
Here we find the apostle speaks of a corruptible crown, 
which the sinner obtains, and of an incorruptible crown 
to be given to the saints ; but my opponent will tell you, 
no, both saint and sinner are to have an incorruptible 
crown, and a glory that fadeth not away, in opposition to 
all the apostles or even Jesus Christ himself has said. 
Again, Paul says, Heb. xii. 28, " Wherefore we, that is 
the saints, receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved j? 
and so on. 

Having now proved to you from the scripture, beyond 
the possibility of contradiction, the absolute eternity of 
God, of the kingdom of Christ, and of the happiness of the 
saints. I will next prove, from the same source, and by si- 
milar passages, the absolute eternity of the torment of the 
wicked ; and this, I hope my opponent will allow, is com- 
ing to the point. In Gen. vi. 3, " And the Lord said, 
my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he 
also is flesh : yet his day shall be an hundred and twenty 
years." During that period of the world, the Lord con- 
descended to strive with man for the sj)ace of nearly 2000 
years, and then he declared he would not strive with 
them any longer. This is a dreadful state for the sinner 
to be in, when joined to their idol, the pleasures of this 
world, and so firmly united to sin, that the admonitions, 
the warnings of God's servants, cannot induce thejn to 
turn from it. And the Lord says, with a voice of terror, 
" Let them alone. Vengeance is mine, I will repay, 
saith the Lord." Again, our Saviour says, " That some 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt. vii. 
"*&l. "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, 
shall enter in to the kingdom of heaven," &c. Now my op- 
ponent says they shall all enter. Now, if they ever enter 
into the kingdom of heaven, though it be thousands, or 
ten thousand times ten thousands of years before they do 



100 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

enter, yet if they ever do, I contend that even our Lord 
himself did not know what he said : hut that my opponent 
was right ; for they shall enter into the kingdom of hea- 
ven. Again, our Lord says, "They who are bidden shall 
not taste of the supper." Luke xiv. 24. Now every 
christian knows well enough that this relates to the king- 
dom of heaven ; therefore, those who were bidden, and 
would not come, or would not obey the gospel call, shall 
not enter the kingdom of heaven. Now, my opponent 
says they shall, even Judas and all bis advocates and fol- 
lowers, notwithstanding it is so positively declared by 
our Lord himself that they shall not. Again, James says, 
ii. 13, " He shall have judgment without mercy that 
showed no mercy." " My opponent says, that mercy shall 
be tempered with judgment, and that all shall have mercy 
extended to them. James says they shall not ; because 
they have lived without God in the world, and it is only 
those who are born again that shall obtain justice, richly 
mingled with mercy. Our Lord says, Matt. vii. 15, 
u But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will 
your Father forgive your trespasses." Now, we all 
know that some live and die without forgiving those who 
have trespassed against them ; hut yet, my opponent says, 
if they do die without forgiving injuries, yet they shall 
all be saved. Though this is not exactly his language, 
it is that of his doctrine. However, whether he admits 
it to be true, or not, it will not alter the truths of the 
scriptures, as all unbelievers will finally know to their 
sorrow. Paul says, their faith shall not profit them to 
their good because they were circumcised, depending upon 
their works. My opponent says it shall profit them. — 
Again, the wise man says, Eccles. ix. 10, " Whatsoever 
thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might : for there is 
no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the 
grave, whither thou goest." Now, though a man live 
and die in sin, as was the case with the Egyptians, and 
others who have been cut off untimely, my opponent 
says, or rather his doctrine for him, that there is work ; 
and device, and knowledge, and wisdom, in the grave, 
for there, these wicked men, who died in their sins, will be 
lieve, so that eventually they will all be saved : for without 
belief there can be no salvation. Our Saviour says, John 
ix. 4, "I must work the works of him that sent me, while 
it is day ; the night cometh when no man can work." — 
That is, when the end cometh, those who die in their sins 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 101 

cannot work. But this is neither the language nor the 
doctrine of a Universalist. Again, the wise man says, 
Prov. xxix. 1, " He that being often reproved, hardeneth 
his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that" — with 
a remedy ? No — "without remedy. 5 ' The remedy is 
introduced by my learned oppponent. Again, Ps. i. 5, 
" The ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sin- 
ners in the congregation of the righteous." Now, by this 
I understand, that the righteous are those who shall stand 
in the judgment, and that the ungodly are those who shall 
not stand in the judgment, when the Lord Jesus shall 
come with his saints to separate the goats from the sheep ; 
and, he says, the sheep, only, are to stand at his right 
hand. My opponent says, they shall all stand at his 
right hand, both sheep and goats ! Solomon says, there 
is no change after death. My opponent says, there is ! 
Our Lord says, they shall see the light? No. They 
shall not see the light. It is my opponent that says they 
shall see the light. At least this is the doctrine he preach- 
es. Again, our Lord says, Mark ix. 43, 44, " And if 
thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to en- 
ter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into 
hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched. Where 
their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched." My 
opponent insists that it shall be quenched, and, for that 
purpose, he has given us a new translation to make poor 
weak people believe it. He tells you that the worm which 
dieth not, and the fire which is not quenched is in time : 
that it refers to the valley of Hinnnom. So that if thy 
foot offend thee, you are to cut it off, rather than to enter 
into the valley of Hinnnom ! — But we do not rest upon one 
passage only, to prove our doctrine true; the scriptures 
are full of it. John says, Matt. iii. 12, " Whose fan is 
in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, 
and gather his wheat into his garner : but he will 
burn up the chaff (i. e. the wicked) with unquenchable 
fire." Yes my friends, with fire that shall never be 
quenched. In vain will the tears of the Universalists at- 
tempt to put it out, they never can quench it though they 
shed rivers of tears. And although they may vary the 
words, the fact itself must be so, for what God has said, no 
one can alter. Oh ! my friends I would not persuade you 
to believe a thing so dreadful in itself, but God has said so, 
and it is my duty, as his servant, to warn you of it. Among 
the numerous passages which I have quoted, and which 



102 THEOLOGUCAL DISCUSSION. 

contradict in the most positive terms the principles of my 
opponent, there is one which I have before quoted, which 
he appears carefully to have avoided, and which no criti- 
cism can get over ; it is this : " Besides all this, between 
us and you there is a great gulf fixed : so that they which 
would pass from hence to you cannot : neither can they 
pass to us, that would come from thence." If it be pos- 
sible for my opponent to prove his part of the proposition 
true ; pray let him explain this text. 



11§ o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — My opponent has once more turned to his 
little book, and of this I am glad, for he has really enter- 
tained you better with what he has read therefrom, than 
he did in his former address. — He has given you, during 
the last half hour, a number of scripture declarations, in 
the truth of which I believe as firmly as he can possibly 
do. — But before he had commenced reading, I am sorry 
that he had given to us some evidence that he is either as 
ignorant of, or as willing to misrepresent the English as 
he has done the original language of the scriptures. I 
will give you one specimen. 

In order to meet an observation of mine, in which it 
was stated that I did not, in my Lectures, call any man 
by the epithets which I there applied only to doctrines, he 
reads the passage from the 228th page of my Lectures, 
(which it can be hardly necessary to repeat,) and says I 
do apply these epithets to men ; for he says, does he not, 
in talking of denominations and doctrines of men, talk of 
men ? And, therefore, he declares that I do call men the 
impure children, &c. and not their doctrines. Does my 
opponent understand English ? Can he make the genitive 
or possessive case, as it is termed in our grammars, the 
nominative to the verb? In the sentence referred to, the word 
u men" is governed by the preposition of, and is not the 
nominative case to the verb ; it is, therefore, to the doc- 
trines, sentiments, tenets, of every sect or denomination 
of men, who limit the grace of God by such doctrines, that 
I apply the censure, and not the men themselves. But he 
is about as correct in this instance as he is in others. He 
has told you repeatedly, when quoting passages from scrip- 
ture, that his opponent did or would say differently from 
what these passages assert, or at least his doctrine would 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 103 

say it. But if he had waited until he could havo heard 
what I would say from my own lips, he would have found 
that he was entirely mistaken, even if he had believed so. 
Among other things, he told you his opponent declares the 
fire spoken of in Matthew iii. 12, will be quenched. To 
show you whether I say so, or can possibly believe so, I 
will read you the passage from the Translation of the New 
Testament which I have given to the world : 

"He will baptize you in a holy spirit, [and fire:] whose 
winnowing-shovel is in his hand, and he will thoroughly 
cleanse his floor, and gather [his] wheat into the granary^ 
"but will consume the chaff in unquenchable fire." 

Here then is the evidence to prove that I say this fire is 
quenchable. — Whatever may be said of this fire, literally, 
I would by no means undertake to prove that our God, 
whom we are informed " is a consuming fire," is quench- 
able : for if so, God might be quenched ; and upon his im- 
quenchableness I depend for my hopes of entire purifica- 
tion from sin and iniquity. — «* I will sit," says God 
through the mouth of his inspired Prophet, " as a refiner 
and purifier of silver, and will purify the sons of Levi, and 
purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer an of- 
fering in righteousness." Mai. iii. 3. Now if this purify- 
ing fire could be quenched, it might be put out before the 
gold and silver had been thoroughly purged. Has fire 
any power to consume or destroy the silver and the gold, 
— the pure metal ? all that the fire can do is to separate the 
dross, the alloy, the impure from the precious metal : the 
more the metal is refined, the better it becomes, and if no- 
thing be lost by carelessness or mismanagement, all will 
remain in the end undestroyed by the fire. Does, then, 
my doctrine, as my opponent would wish to have you sup- 
pose, depend upon the quench ableness of this fire? Neither 
have I, in my translation, attempted to do away the un- 
quenchableness of the fire where it is said, "Now if thy 
right eye insnare thee, pluck it out, and cast if from thee: 
for it is better for thee to lose one of thy members, than 
that thy whole body should be cast into Gehenna. And if 
thy right hand insnare thee, cut it off, and cast it from 
thee : for it is better for thee to lose one of thy members, 
than that thy whole body should be cast into Gehenna." 
Matt. v. 29, 30. The same is true of the parallel passage 
in Mark.— We read, Romans i. 18, " The wrath of God 
is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrigh- 



104 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

teousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.''* 
Now my opponent may here say that the apostle speaks 
of men, not of their ungodliness ; but this is not so : the 
wrath of God is to be revealed against the " ungodliness 
and unrighteousness'* which is in men ; and if this be so, 
if the wrath of God is revealed against unrighteousness, 
will it in the end destroy it or not ? It would be better for 
the doctrine maintained by my opponent that the fire by 
which sin is to be burned up, were quenchable, for then 
it might not destroy all iniquity, and some of mankind 
might remain sinners to all eternity. But when all sin, 
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men is destroyed, then, 
like the purified sons of Levi, they will " offer to the Lord 
an offering in righteousness." As long as any chaff— as 
long as any alloy or base particles remain, this pure offer- 
ing cannot be made. 

My opponent would wish you to understand the chaff 
in the passage where it is said, that Christ will " gather 
his wheat into the granary, but he will consume the chaff 
in unquenchable fire," to mean the unrighteous, and the 
wheat the righteous ; but will the figure bear him out in 
this explanation ? — Our opponent comes from a country 
where he must have seen wheat growing in the fields — do 
they in Kentucky, I would ask him, raise a grain of wheat 
without its chaff? If that were the case, there would be no 
need of threshing it — and if any part of it were all chaff, it 
would be of no use to take any trouble with it ; for it would 
all then be only fit for the fire. But the fact is, both the 
wheat and the chaff grow together ; each grain being en- 
veloped^by its chaff; it must, then, to prepare it for use, 
be cut down from off the field where it grew, brought to 
the threshing floor, the wheat beat out, and afterward, by 
the process of winnowing, separated from the chaff, and 
the chaff be burnt up, as of no use. — Now, if the chaff, as 
we understand the parable, mean the earthly character of 
man, which is "earthly, sensual, and devilish," which is 
«< not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, can be," 
is it any matter how soon it is burnt up in the purifying 
fire of God's love? How happy would it be for us all, if 
the carnal mind of the inhabitants of this city were destroy- 
ed — were consumed in unquenchable fire! — Nothing save 
this will prepare men to offer an offering to the Lord in 
righteousness, like Abel of old, who " offered unto God 
a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtain- 



THEOLOGICAL. DISCUSSION. 105 

ed witness that he was righteous." Heb. xi. 4. My oppo- 
nent then goes on to quote expressions of scripture, which 
he says prove the endless torment of the wicked ; but has 
he brought forward any passage which absolutely proves 
such a doctrine ? If he has, it has escaped my attention. 
Where is the testimony that says the punishment of the 
wicked shall have no end ? My opponent has given none — 
he can give none : for I now assert there is no such tes- 
timony in the whole bible ! 

He has quoted some passages where he says the same word 
is used to prove the eternity of God, and that, what proves 
the eternity of the latter, must prove the eternity of the 
former. — This is a specious, but false statement. — It is not 
because these words rendered eternal, everlasting, &c. 
are connected with the existence of God, that we believe 
him to be from eternity to eternity, but because from his 
very nature, he cannot have " beginning of days or end of 
life." 

My opponent tells you that he can prove the eternal 
punishment of the wicked, by the same expressions that we 
prove the eternal life of the saints. Neither is this true. 
— The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, speaks of the 
great High Priest, " who was made not after the law of a 
carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless 
life,' 5 vii. 16. Where we have a Greek term *jt*T*Mwoc 
connected with life, and the life of the great High Priest 
of our profession, when he is contrasted with the everlast- 
ing ctwtov priesthood under the law — for theirs was called 
an everlasting priesthood, Exod. xl. 15, ** And thou shalt 
anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they 
may minister unto me in the priest's office : for their 
anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood through- 
out their generations ;" and when the apostle contrasts 
their continuation with the life which is in our High Priest, 
even Christ, and through him given to us, he makes use of this 
word, which signifies, literally, indissoluble, indestructi- 
ble. — Now I tell you, my hearers, and call upon my op- 
ponent to disprove the statement if he can, that the Greek 
term here made use of, is no where connected with mise- 
ry, death, or punishment in all the bible. 

Now, if Christ, his disciples and apostles intended to 
preach the doctrine of endless misery to their hearers, 
why did they not make use of this term, about the mean- 
ing of which there could be no dispute ? But my opponent 

14 



106 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

cannot show in one single instance this word in connex- 
ion with punishment or misery. Judge, then, for your- 
selves, how well he has succeeded in proving that the pun- 
ishment of the wicked will have no end. 

My opponent, also, has brought forward certain pas- 
sages of scripture in which salvation is spoken of hypo- 
thetically. Now in a few words I will show you the force 
of this species of argument : 

It is lawful for us to make use of different parts of the 
scripture where the same term occurs, in order to dis- 
cover its meaning. — In the last voyage of Paul when lie 
was sent prisoner to Rome, he was cast away on a cer- 
tain island. I need not relate to you the whole history, 
as it must be familiar to all of you. — After being tossed 
about by the tempest, and " when neither sun nor stars 
in many days appeared, and all hope that they should be 
saved was taken away," Paul, addressing the crew to 
this effect, said, The angel of God, whose I am and whom 
I serve, stood by me this night, saying, Fear not, Paul ; 
God hath given thee all them that sail with thee ; be of 
good cheer, therefore, " for there shall be no loss of any 
man's life among you, but of the ship." Acts xxvii. 22 — 
24. Did not Paul preach universal salvation to all those 
in the ship, that is, as far as related to their temporal 
lives ? Now go on a little further in the history : 

It seems the sailors did not place much credit in what 
the prisoner had asserted, and attempted to make their 
escape from the vessel in the boat. — What said Paul when 
lie perceived this ? Did he say, as our opponents say some 
Universalists preach, that it was no matter what they* 
did, they will all be saved — let them go into the boat? 
No. Paul declares to the Centurion and the soldiers, 
" Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved !" 
Now my opponent might as well say that the men in the 
ship with Paul were not saved, because Paul said hypo- 
thetically, « Except these abide in the ship ye cannot be 
saved," as to say that some part of mankind shall not be 
saved, because it is said of them hypothetically, " Unless 
ye repent ye shall all likewise perish ;" or, " except a 
man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God :" 
for we find from the history that the lives of all that were 
in the ship were saved, " some on boards and some on 
pieces of the ship, and so it came to pass, that they es- 
i -aped all safe to land." 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 107 

If such kind of argument is necessary to prove the doc- 
trine of endless misery, what degree of weight has it ? Is 
not God adequate to appoint means to carry all his pur- 
poses into execution ? — If God has purposed the salvation 
of all men, and we are told that " God will have all men 
to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth," 
we may rest assured that he has appointed means per- 
fectly adequate to carry his glorious purpose into effect : 
for who can stay the hand of the Almighty ? — But my 
time is expired. 



108 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. 



4 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — In the exercises of the forenoon, I en- 
deavoured to prove the absolutely eternal punishment of 
the wicked, by the numerous passages of scripture which 
I produced for that purpose ; some of which tended to show 
that there should be no end to their torments ; others, that 
they should never enter into Heaven ; and some, that there 
should be no end to their abode in Hell ; and all these pas- 
sages are acknowledged by my opponent to be scripture, 
and he says that he believes them as firmly as I do : of his 
sincerity you must judge; for he tells you that they prove 
nothing — they are not to the point; they all relate to time; 
and that they are not positive testimony of a future state 
of punishment, &c. Other passages I produced which 
show that the wicked (i. e. unbelievers) shall not taste 
of his (i. e. Christ's) supper: but, like the rich man, they 
have many suppers, and their good things in this world, 
while the righteous, like Lazarus, feed upon crumbs, and 
have their evil things here, and sup with their Lord in his 
kingdom. Another passage I produced to prove that they 
shall never he forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the 
next. I told you my opponent says they shall be forgiven, 
but the scriptures say they shall not ; because some live 
and die without forgiving those who have done them an 
injury : in proof of which I mentioned the Egyptians, 
who, in their anger and zeal to destroy the children of Is- 
rael, were cut off in the full career of their wickedness ; 
and others who came to an untimely end. I produced se- 
veral other passages to the same purport, and closed with 
the account of the rich man and Lazarus, between whom 
there is an impassable gulf, and which I called upon my 
opponent, if he was able, to explain. But did he do so? 
No. He did not even say one word about it. Now, who 
cannot see the reason of his silence on the passage ? It is 
an impassable gulf and it cannot be got over. I also pro- 
duced several passages to prove that the fire which the 
wicked are to endure, is unquenchable. He charges me 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 109 

with having informed this assembly, that he, in his Tes- 
tament, has made the fire spoken of in Mark ix. 45, to be 
quenchable, but that he " does not render it so, nor does 
he wish it be understood so." It is evidently intended to 
be understood so in his translation, if even he did not tell 
you so. Thus it stands in the translation : "To be cast into 
Gehenna," [into the unquenchable fire] [where the worm 
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.] He has acknow- 
ledged that this is the expression he uses in his transla- 
tion. Now take notice : — in his translation he uses the 
terms unquenchable fire, fire, &c. ; but observe, — in the 
preface to this admirable translation, page 7, he says, 
about the 19th line from the top, "And in every instance 
where an alteration has been made, it has been for the sake 
of further improvement." Excellent improvement ! to 
escape eternal torments. Below that, he tells you " But 
such words as are retained in the text, but which perhaps 
should be omitted, are (in this translation) enclosed in 
brackets." Again, he tells you, " Such words as should 
probably be omitted, are enclosed in brackets, and printed 
in Italic." And he further tells you, that " such sentences 
as most certainly should be omitted, and which are enclos- 
ed in brackets in Griesbach, or Greesbak, as he pronounced 
it, are enclosed in double brackets, and printed in Italic," 
(in his new translation) as John v. 4, viii. 1 — 11. In 
another place he tells you that those " sentences printed 
in Italic in the improved version, as indications of their 
beingof doubtful authority, although not rejected, or mark- 
ed as being doubtful by Griesbach, are also printed in 
Italic, but not inclosed in brackets, as Luke xxiii. 43, and 
the narratives contained in the two first chapters of Mat- 
thew and Luke." In another place, he tells us, " All 
those words and sentences which are omitted in some co- 
pies, but which ought not to be omitted, (except a very 
few, which are enclosed in brackets upon the authority of 
"Wakefield, or the improved version,) as well as those 
which have been added by Griesbach, (but upon good au- 
thority,) are here inserted without any distinguishing 
mark." Here he has honesty enough to acknowledge that 
there are some objections which ought not to be omitted, 
even according to their own translation. Now, if you 
will turn to the chapter in Matthew, iii. 11, you will find the 
words [and fire] enclosed in brackets, and these, he has 
given you to understand, ought to be omitted. But what 
authority does he give you for thus perverting the scrip- 



110 THEOLOGICAL DISCtTSSIOff. 

tures and making the word of God of none effect, and giv- 
ing them an interpretation to suit his own purpose. 
The authority of Mr. Wakefield, whom he tells you " was 
not a Universalist," but he took good care not to tell 
you that he was an Infidel Unitarian ! I will not say cor- 
rupt — lest I should be again stopped by my opponent or 
his moderator. He made a rule that each should proceed 
in his own way in this debate, in order to prove the point 
in discussion ; why then does he violate it ? How dare he 
break his own rule I His moderator stops me if I use an 
expression they dont like to hear, no matter how true, 
why then does he not stop him ? 

You all have heard his very ingenious explanation of 
the term unquenchable fire, and you must admit that a 
strange fire he has made of it : strange indeed as a place 
of punishment for the wicked, although he has admitted 
it will exist so long as God exists. He produced the pas- 
sage in Heb. xii. 29, " Our God is a consuming fire," and 
he would have you to understand that this consuming fire, 
which is God, only destroys the evil which the sinner 
does, and suffers the cause of it to escape. He tells you 
that their corruption only, shall be destroyed : but they 
themselves shall be saved. But even acccrding to his 
own translation, ridiculous as it is in many places, the 
words are in these instances nearly the same as in our 
own. Thus, in Matt. iii. 12, " But he will consume the 
chaff in unquenchable fire :" and in Heb. xii. 20, " For 
even our God is a consuming fire." But he would wish 
you to understand, that when it is said the wicked shall 
be cast into this unquenchable fire, it means that they are 
to be cast into God. Now, for my own part, I dont know 
any thing that I desire more, nor is there any thing that 
I can see better for me, than to be cast into my God. Do 
you, my friends, know any thing more desirable than to 
enter into the Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man, 
the mediator. It is in the hope of obtaining this, that I 
suffer here, in defence of his holy doctrine. How far pre- 
ferable would it be for me to be cast into this unquencha- 
ble, this consuming fire ? (that is, according to my oppo- 
nent, to be cast into God) and what my heart most thirsts 
after, is to dwell with the Lord Jesus, and his saints, for 
ever. I know not what you, my friends, may think of 
this way of interpreting the scriptures, but if you ap- 
prove of it, I do not. By the same ingenious mode of 
criticism, I have no doubt he would make it appear that 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. Ill 

« The worm which dieth not," was Abraham's bosom ! In 
fact, he can make out any thing he pleases, he is such a 
very great Greek scholar 1 1 1 

After the progress which I made in the forenoon, I have 
little else to say in order to finish the species of argument 
called negative, where I clearly proved, that none are to 
enter into heaven except those who believe. I will, there- 
fore, now attend to one more species of a similar kind ; 
full as much to the purpose as the former. For instance, 
that which is termed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and 
for which we are told in the scriptures, not to pray, as 
1 John, v. 16, 17, " If any man see his brother sin, a sin 
which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give 
him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a 
sin unto death : I do not say that ye shall pray for it. All 
unrighteousness is sin : and there is a sin not unto death." 
Again, speaking of those who call themselves christians, 
and who crucify the son of God afresh, and put him to 
open shame, Paul says, Heb. vi. 4, 6, " For it is impos- 
sible for those who were once enlightened, &c. if they 
shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, 
&c." and all the Greek learning of my opponent, and all 
his new versions and new translations cannot effect what 
God says is impossible. Again, in Heb. x. 26, 29, " For 
if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the know- 
ledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for 
sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery 
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that 
despised Moses' law, died without mercy under two or 
three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose 
ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under 
foot the son of God, and hath counted the blood of the 
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, 
and hath done despite unto the spirit of grape V* This 
text proves the remarks which I made this morning con- 
cerning the end of the world. The certainty of a severe* 
punishment of the wicked after death ; and the final fate 
of the Devil and of his children. So that when they have 
made of the scriptures all the nonsense they can, and 
twisted and perverted them to suit their own purposes, 
there is still enough left to prove them true, and to defeat 
the visionary schemes of those who reject them, and to 
further the doctrine which we preach, as the declared 
truth of God ; and shall w T e who say what the Lord Jesus 
says, be told that we holc^ false opinions and preach a 



112 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

false doctrine, when we use his words ? because we have 
new versions translated by men of great learning, who 
get hold of Parkhurst's Lexicon, where they meet with 
many definitions to the same original word, and make a 
selection of the one which they think must be the meaning 
because it will answer their purpose ? I have before men- 
tioned some of these perversions that are found in diffe- 
rent translations, and there are many other passages which 
might be produced, such as instead of eagle, they have 
put in the daughter of the splitter. In another text the 
translator observes, " if this word does not mean Lion it 
means something like one," and yet these are the learned 
men who pretend to give us new versions and new trans- 
lations, and those revealed truths of God, which con- 
tradict them, they say are spurious, or at least, "not to be 
alleged as affording alone sufficient proof of any doctrine." 
But I have made it my business to ask concerning this 
said new translation published here, and I cannot find a 
single divine in the city who thought it worth their while 
to attend to it. They considered it so contemptible none 
would take notice of it, in fact some had not so much as 
heard of it. But w r e will pass on. There is a passage in 
the scriptures which relates to the sin of blasphemy, which 
it is said shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor 
the next. Now this is as plain an expression as it is pos- 
sible to be ; but I suppose we shall have to go to this great 
Greek scholar to get an explanation of its meaning, and 
he will tell you that it means " damnation for only a little 
while, but mark what the scriptures say, Matt. xii. 31, 
32. " Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and 
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blasphe- 
my against the Holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven unto 
men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the son 
of man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh 
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world, neither in the world to come." My 
learned opponent would make it appear that both these 
worlds are not only to be in time but in a few years. We 
think now that we have clearly proved from the blessed 
word of God, which cannot lie : that there is no repen- 
tance neither in time nor eternity for the incorrigible sin- 
ner, and that those who live and die without being sanc- 
tified and made holy, cannot enter into heaven, but will 
be consigned to an absolutely eternal state of punishment 
and misery. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 113 

The last species of evidence which I shall produce 
in support of the truth of my part of the proposition, 
is the positive declarations contained in the scriptures 
with regard to the future happiness of the saints and 
the endless misery of the sinners; but as I do not 
wish to consume more time than is actually necessary, 
nor more than you may wish to give, although my oppo- 
nent insinuates that I do, I shall therefore give the plain 
passages of scripture without regard to the chapter and 
verse,^ and without taking any notice of those passages 
on which my opponent builds his fallacious doctrines, but 
will examine his texts when we come to answer them. 
The first positive declaration of God to this effect which 
I will produce is in Jer. [xxiii. 40,] " And I will bring an 
everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, 
which shall not be forgotten," and the last of Dan. [xii. 
£,] is a passage to the same purpose, " And many of them 
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." [Isai. lxv. 13,] " My servants shall rejoice, but 
ye shall be ashamed. Behold my servants shall sing for 
joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and 
shall howl for vexation of spirit." Now you will observe, 
they, (the wicked) shall be ashamed. " I will bring an 
everlasting reproach upon you," (the wicked) and many 
that sleep in the dust of the earth (the very same language 
that St. Paul uses when speaking of the extinction of mor- 
tal existence,) " shall awake, some to everlasting life, 
and some to shame and everlasting contempt." [Mark, 
iii. 29,] " Shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath 
never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." 
[Jude 12,] " Clouds they are without water, carried about 
of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice 
dead, plucked up by the roots ; raging waves of the sea, 
foaming out their own shame ; wandering stars, to whom 
is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever." There 
are many other passages which clearly show the misera- 
ble state of the wicked in eternity, as 2 Peter, ii. 14, 
" Cursed children : which have forsaken the right way, 
and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son, 
of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness ; but 
was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with 

* I have given the chapter and verse for the convenience of the rea- 
der. When the chapter and verse are given by the speaker, they will 
not be enclosed in brackets. R. L. J. 

15 



114 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

man's voice ; forbad the madness of the prophet. These 
are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a 
tempest, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever." 
— Rev. xiv. 1 1, " And the smoke of their torment as- 
cendeth up for ever and ever ; and they have no rest day* 
nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and who- 
soever receiveth the mark of his name." [Rev. xix. 3,] 
" And again they said, Alleluia, and her smoke rose up 
for ever and ever." [Rev. xx. 10,] "And the devil that 
deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, 
where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tor- 
mented day and night for ever and ever." And, again, 
their punishment is spoken of as eternal ; Heb. vi. 2, " Of 
the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of 
resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Take 
notice, Paul speaks of this eternal judgment after the resur- 
rection from the dead. Again, [2Thess. i. 8, 9,] " Inflam- 
ing fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, 
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ : — 
who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from 
the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his pow- 
er." [Mark ix.43,] "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot of- 
fend, cut them off, it is better to enter into life maimed, 
than having two hands and two feet to be cast into hell, 
where their worm dieth not and the fire shall never be 
quenchedi" Or, as it is, in another place, [Matt, xviii. 8,] 
"To be cast into everlasting fire." [Matt. xxv. 41,] 
" Then he shall say unto them on the left hand, Depart 
from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the 
devil and his angels." " And these shall go away into 
everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eter- 
nal." These texts of scripture, declare expressly, that 
the punishment is to be absolutely eternal. 

It now remains for me to recapitulate the argument 
which we have offered, and which we have attended to 
with as much brevity as possible, and which was delivered 
to you in the following order : — First, by that mode of ar- 
gument called inference, drawn from the attributes of God, 
from the condition of man, showing his utter helplessness 
to perform that which isgood and acceptable to God, with- 
out the assistance of the divine spirit. Again, by that spe- 
ries of argument termed implication, wherein we showed 
that he who livcth and dieth a stranger to God, will perish, 
and that without remedy; next, the great and irreconcilea- 
fele distinction between the future state of the righteous 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 115 

and the wicked ; the next, are those negative expressions, 
which show that the wicked shall never partake of the joys 
and happiness of the saints ; and, lastly, those positive 
declarations in the scriptures, which prove that the pun- 
ishment of the wicked is to he absolutely eternal. These 
last passages, which I have termed positive declarations, 
depend entirely for their force on the meaning of the word 
translated eternal. 

You all know that my opponent says the Greek word, 
translated in the common version, eternal, does not mean, 
as we understand it, according to the common acceptation 
of the word in English, a space of time without any end; 
but he translates the word mm aion, in his new translation 
age, signifying a space of time which shall have an end; 
and he tells you that he has translated it for the accommo- 
dation of those who do not understand Hebrew and Greek, 
and who wish to examine the original scriptures for them- 
selves ; but it is not upon the authority of Wakefield, nor 
of a new version, that we are to reject the word of God ; 
nor is it by giving them as authority, that a doctrine can 
be proved, but by comparing scripture with scripture, 
which is the only true criterion whereby to judge of a 
doctrine, or of the meaning of a word. When the learned 
world are at any loss, or at issue about the meaning of a 
word, they try it by certain established rules, namely, 
they examine the author, and find how, and to what pur- 
pose he generally applies the word ; or, secondly, they ex- 
amine how it is used by his cotemporary writers; or, 
thirdly, they examine in what sense it w T as used by the 
authors which he was in the habit of reading, or, till they 
find it is used generally, in such a sense, that no other 
meaning can be attached to it. I could read you a pas- 
sage from Parkhurst and from Campbell's dissertation, 
which my opponent also quotes as his authority, to prove the 
correctness of the definition which I have given to the 
word mm aion ; namely, that it means duration without 
end, and the incorrectness of my opponent's definition, 
that it means time that will have an end. 

Why did not my opponent tell you that Dr. Campbell 
and Parkhurst, his favourite authors, render this word aU 
ways being, from uu always, and the present participle m 
being, for he must have known it ? I do not mention this 
as any authority to rest our doctrine on ; but we shall ap- 
ply the same rules to the scriptures, which the learned 
have applied to other books, in the settling of the meaning 



116 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

of disputed words. You will therefore take notice that 
there are three passages in the Old Testament and fifteen 
in the New, where this word, which we translate eternal, 
is used in connexion with the eternal existence of God. — 
By the Old Testament, I presume, you all know we mean 
those scriptures which were written in the Hehrevv, and 
by the New Testament we mean those which are in the 
Greek. 

We then ask what does this word mean when used in 
the Hebrew, and applied to God ? Does it not mean end- 
less duration ? as he never had beginning, so he will 
never end or cease to be, consequently when the same word 
is applied to punishment, it must convey the same idea of 
an endless duration. This word is also used to convey 
the idea of the eternity of Christ's kingdom, and of the 
saints eternal happiness. 

Ah o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — T am happy in the consideration, that, 
standing before so numerous an assembly to discuss the 
important question now agitated in your hearing, I am 
addressing an audience that is capable of judging of the 
weight of arguments offered on either side ; of the sense 
and the propriety of that which is delivered, and of the 
candour and talents of those who are addressing you. 
You are all well aware, and will, no doubt, be willing to 
admit, that ridicule, witticism, and satire are not to be 
taken for argument. Satisfied that you will receive them 
for what they are worth, and wishing you to give them all 
the weight and influence they deserve, I feel perfectly wil- 
ling to leave them with you, knowing that you will make 
a proper use of them : and I can assure my opponent that 
his arrows of ridicule, witticism, and satire, intended, no 
doubt, to wound my feelings, fall perfectly harmless at my 
feet ! But aside from this, whenever there is any evidence 
of a want of candour, as a misstatement, or from whatever 
cause a blunder may be committed, it should be corrected. 
— [Here the speaker was interrupted by some person on the 
outside, who made so much noise that he drew the attention 
of most persons in the house. Mr. K. observed, it was some 
one, he presumed, labouring under mental derangement, that 
he was sorry to see so much confusion, — the audience need 
not be disturbed; but if any one preferred hearing a deranged 
person to the continuance of his argument, he was at perfect 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 117 

liberty to "withdraw and follow him, that those who wished 
to hear the remainder of the discussion might do so without 
interruption. Mr, K. resumed.'] — I have said that an er- 
ror, whether it proceed from a want of candour, or from a 
real blunder, ought to be corrected. That an error has 
been committed from one or the other of these causes, I 
think I can show you pretty clearly. 

I shall not attempt to repeat to you what you have heard 
respecting a passage in Mark ix. in the new translation, 
and which my opponent told you, or at least insinuated, 
that I have mutilated the text, and tried to expunge the 
offensive words, " where the worm dieth not," &c. be- 
cause those words militate against my doctrine : for, who- 
ever reads those passages after having read the preface, 
will perfectly understand the truth respecting them. He 
says that 1 have tried to make out that the worm which 
shall not die and the fire which shall not be quenched are 
all interpolations, or probably so. In this he has been un- 
candid, or else he has made a real and a great mistake. 
For if there be but one passage where this fire is spoken 
of as unquenchable in the Roman character, and not in- 
closed in brackets, I admit that this one passage is quite 
as sufficient for his purpose as if there had been several. 
It is rather curious that my opponent has endeavoured to 
make you believe that in the new translation I wish to ex- 
clude all those passages where the words unquenchable 
fire, &c. are used ; or which, as he says, militate against 
the doctrines which I hold, under the plea that they are 
probably or possibly interpolations ; when, if he had taken 
the pains to have read to the 48th verse, he would have 
given you a passage which is full as strong for his pur- 
pose as the other, being nearly the very same words, and 
not included in brackets, nor printed in Italics. Why was 
he not candid enough to acknowledge this ? For, as I be- 
fore observed, if it be recorded but once, is it not sufficient 
to prove all he may require ? He further tells you that my 
authority for " perverting the scriptures," as he terms it, 
is Mr. Wakefield, but that I had not candour enough to 
tell you that he was an infidel Unitarian, though 1 told 
you he was an Universalist. Now the words are not in- 
closed in brackets upon the authority of Wakefield, but 
upon the authority of Griesbach, of which my Testament 
professes to be a translation. If I have excluded any pas- 
sages, therefore, it is because they are not found in Gries- 
bach, whose Greek text I followed, and if some others are 



118 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION'. 

rendered doubtful, it is, with a very few exceptions, up- 
on the same authority ; and even these exceptions are 
all explicitly stated in the preface. But, my hearers, it 
is all a mistake ; it is no such thing as has been repre- 
sented by my opponent. We wish facts to appear as they 
are. 

The true reason why he objects to the new translation, I 
am disposed to think, is, because it is designed to assist 
unlearned men in the better understanding of the scrip- 
tures : and, that it is calculated to have this effect, all 
must be convinced who will read it with attention. Again, 
with regard to the Greek terms *«w aion, (which in the 
common version of your bibles, is most generally render- 
ed forever, and sometimes world, but which I have uni- 
formly rendered age,) and cukvm aioniov, which is rendered 
everlasting and eternal in the common version, but which 
I have retained in the translation, my opponent thinks it 
very extraordinary that I should give such definitions of 
them. It would have been improper to have retained the 
Greek word aionion, I admit, had I not previously explain- 
ed it in the preface; but it would have been still more im- 
proper to have rendered these words in as many different 
ways as they are in the common version : if my opponent, 
therefore, had taken as much pains to read and understand 
the preface to my translation, as he has to find fault with 
the work, he might have saved himself the trouble of mak- 
ing many uncharitable remarks. Since he did not, I will 
give you the explanation of those words : See preface to 
my Greek and English Testament, which is also inserted 
in the translation, alone, page vi. which I will now read : 

" As to the word &utv, plural «i»w, and the adjective *iwto S 
it has been thought best to adhere strictly to the text, in 
rendering the noun or substantive, according to its literal 
import, age, plural ages; and as to the adjective, having 
no word in English which exactly conveys the idea of the 
original word *«w«s, it has been thought that this word, 
like many others even in the common version, should be 
retained in the translation; only giving it a Roman, or 
rather, as we may say, an English dress, aionian. This 
lias been already done by Scarlett; who also renders «»jr 
age, Mmts ages* Being a shorter word, and equally plea- 
sant to the ear as the word everlasting, no one can object 
that this should be associated with the language of scrip- 
ture ; a language, in many respects, peculiar to itself, and 
whose peculiarities, (particularly of the New Testament) 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 119 

are mostly limited to religious subjects. If the original 
word be retained, then in reading or quoting all or any 
of the passages where it is used, the reader or hearer will 
have full liberty to give it his own construction, according 
to his own understanding; and as we are not disposed 
either to extend or limit its meaning in any way not justi- 
fied by the inspired writers, this has been thought on the 
whole the safest method. In many places, its meaning 
maybe extended indefinitely without injury to the sense; 
and wherever the sense seems to require that its meaning 
should be restricted, or, in other words, not extended be- 
yond its original import, only let it be understood that it 
means continued duration without interruption, which may 
be either longer or shorter, as the nature of the case may 
require, and it removes all difficulty on the subject. And 
this sense of the word will not, yea, cannot be disputed by 
the learned." 

So, it will be perceived, I have given the words without 
any extension or limit. Now, this my opponent calls per- 
verting the scriptures — and, observe, he charges me with 
a want of candour, for saying that it was the opinion given 
by the most learned men in existence. One of the very 
learned authors to whom he has referred, speaking of «/&* 
also says, " It denotes duration or continuance, but with 
great variety." So much for the word *tm and */»*«?, and 
with regard to the mistake my opponent made. 

I will now attend to my opponent's arguments. He 
tells us that he has now produced to you, all, by which he 
intended to prove the doctrine for which he contends : — 
How has he proved it? He has told you a great deal about 
arguments by inference, by implication, by contrast, by 
negation, and, lastly, what he terms positive declarations; 
— and what do they all amount to with respect to proving 
his part of the proposition ? Nothing. He has multiplied 
passages of scripture upon you to prove his doctrine, (ail 
of which, I receive as well as my opponent,) without pro- 
ducing any argument to prove his construction of them 
true. Are you satisfied to take his word for it ? Perhaps 
he expects me to follow him and to notice, in order, all he 
has said. If he does, he is much mistaken. I do not wish 
to prolong the discussion to an unreasonable length : it 
would consume more time than your patience ov my 
strength would admit. I propose to take a very different 
.method; a method to which my opponent cannot certainly 
object, as it will be but meeting him in his own way; and 



12U THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOX. 

since he will not show us the law of God which requires 
the eternal punishment of the sinner, for the transgression 
of it, although I have so repeatedly urged him to do this, 
I will let him go on preaching Calvinism if he pleases, 
and 1 will bring forward those passages of the word of 
God which go to prove the eternal salvation of all men : 
for certainly, I nave as much right to preach my senti- 
ments as my opponent has his, and unless the scriptures 
will prove two doctrines, as opposite to each other as light 
is to darkness, the result will he that one or the other must 
fall. For if I can prove from the testimony of God given 
to man, by his holy prophets, by Jesus Christ and his 
apostles, that my doctrine is true, of course my opponent 
cannot prove his to be so, and vice versa ; of this, you, 
my hearers, must be our judges. Having done this, I will 
take notice of the most striking texts in favour of my op- 
ponent's doctrine — his most prominent texts, on which he 
mostly depends, and consider them. — I would not have you 
receive that erroneous impression which my opponent 
wished to make upon your minds, viz. that we do not be- 
lieve those texts of scripture which he quoted, or that we 
wish to avoid the force of them. We read them and re- 
ceive them as well as our opponents, and I am convinced 
that we give them equal attention. 

Out of the many texts which may be produced in proof 
of the doctrine of the salvation of all men, I shall quote 
the following: Gen. xii. 3, God in his promise to Abra- 
ham says, " And I will bless them that bless thee, and 
curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the fami- 
lies of the earth be blessed." And Paul, speaking of this 
very promise, says, Gal. iii. 16, "Now to Abraham and 
his seed were the promises made. He saith not to seeds, 
as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ." 
If, therefore, it should be objected that the promise to Abra- 
ham consisted in merely temporal blessings, it may be an- 
swered, that, considering the seed to be Christ, to whom the 
apostle certainly applied the promise, he has declared that 
in him God hath blessed us " with all spiritual blessings 
in heavenly places." Eph. i. 3. Thus runs the promise, 
which promise was renewed to Isaac, and confirmed to 
Jacob in as strong terms as is possible; not conditionally, 
"if they will," but "in thee shall all the families of the 
earth be blessed :" as though the term nations was not suf- 
ficiently strong, he even mentions families : and Peter 
says, Acts iii. 25, " And in thy seed shall all the kindreds 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 121 

of the earth be blessed." If, then, my opponent can show 
me an individual on earth who does not belong to any na- 
tion, family, or kindred, I will then show him an indi- 
vidual who is not included in this blessing; and of course 
I must then give him the argument : but till he can do this, 
I am not disposed to give up the promises made by God 
unto Abraham, and unto us by our Lord Jesus Christ, up- 
on the mere say so of any body — a promise which is sure 
and stedfast, confirmed by an oath, and because he could 
swear by no greater, he sware by himself, that all nations, 
and families, and kindreds of the earth, shall be blessed in 
Jesus Christ the seed of Abraham. How can any be ex- 
cluded from this promise ? Again, Ps. xxii. 27 — 29, "All 
the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the 
Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship 
before thee. For the kingdom is the Lord's : and he is the 
governor among the nations." We are here informed that 
all the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the 
Lord, and all nations shall worship before him : but the 
doctrine which my opponent so zealously contends for, is, 
that all shall not remember and worship God. It is not 
only a difference of opinion between my opponent and me, 
but a difference, a wide difference between him and the 
Psalmist. In Ixxxvi. 9, the Psalmist says, "All nations 
whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, 

Lord, and shall glorify thy name." Now if my oppo- 
nent will show me any nation or individual whom God has 
not made he shall have the argument. He will then have 
to set aside the words of the Psalmist altogether : and if 
there be any nation or individual whom God did not make, 
of course such nation or individual is not included in these 
promises. Again, Ps. cxlv. 9, "The Lord is good to all, 
and his tender mercies are over all his works." He is 
good, of course, to those whom he has consigned to an eter- 
nal punishment, and his tender mercies are over those 
whose torments he is increasing to a never ending dura- 
tion ! If not, ask my opponent how God is good to all, 
and how his tender mercies are over all his works ? The 
passage surely is not without some meaning. Again, Ps. 
Ixxxvi. 13, "For great is thy mercy towards me: and 
thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell." Now, 

1 ask my opponent, if there can be any hell belowthe low- 
est ? I can find no passage in this book which speaks of 
any one praising God for deliverance from a hell lower 
than this: yet will any pretend to say that when the Psalm- 

16 



1&£ THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

ist wrote this that he was in the hell which my oppo- 
nent describes ? Certainly not. My opponent will say 
that I believe only in a hell in this world : let him prove 
that there is one in another, and I will believe it. Again, 
Isa. xxv. 7, (i And he will destroy in this mountain the 
face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that 
is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in 
victory ; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off 
all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away 
from off all the earth : for the Lord hath spoken it." Now, 
mark, this closing phrase is one of great importance "For 
the Lord hath spoken it." What hath the Lord spoken I 
Why, that he will wipe away tears from off all faces. What ! 
will he wipe away the tears of those who are to endure 
endless misery ! Yes, if my opponent can prove there are 
or will be such. I know that the doctrine for which my 
opponent contends, maintains that this blessing is not for 
all people, it is only for a few chosen ones: if so, all will 
not be partakers of it. Well, my opponent may err, and 
I may err in the meaning of this text ; then let us see how 
the apostle Paul understood the prophet : he says, 1 Cor. 
xv. 51 — 54, " Behold I show you a mystery ; We shall not 
all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the 
twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; (for the trumpet 
shall sound ;) and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, 
and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put 
on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, 
and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall 
be brought to pass the saying that is written, * Death is 
swallowed up in victory.' " The apostle is speaking, as 
you will perceive, of the resurrection ; which, I presume, 
none will deny. Now look in the margin of your bibles, 
and you will find it refers you to Isa. xxv. 8, "He will 
swallow up death in victory ; and the Lord God will wipe 
away tears from off all faces ; and the rebuke of his people 
shall he take away from off all the earth : for the Lord hath 
spoken it :" and this is the only passage to which it does 
refer ; that, therefore, is the saying that is written, and 
which is to be brought to pass in the resurrection : and 
of course it is in the resurrection when God will " wipe 
away tears from off all faces," and "Death is swallowed 
up in victory." I say this is to happen when the dead is to 
be raised incorruptible. Now, I ask, does not this relate 
to another world ? And is it not the change which will 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 123 

take place preparatory to another state of existence ? My 
opponent would not dispute with me on this point were I 
to limit it to a few : that God would only wipe away the 
tears of a certain number: hut let us see what the scripture 
saith. John xvii. 2, " As thou hast given him power over 
all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as 
thou has given him. And this is life eternal, that they 
might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
whom thou hast sent." The only question which can 
arise is : How many has the Father given to the Son ? 
John the Baptist says, John iii. 35, "The Father lovetli 
the Son, and hath given all things into his hands :" and 
John the Evangelist says, John xiii. 3, "Jesus knowing 
that the Father had given all things into his hands," &c. 
If, then, as many as were given to Jesus are to have eter- 
nal life, and all are given to Jesus, it necessarily follows, 
all are to have eternal life. Now, lest my opponent should 
want further testimony, I will give it to you in the words 
of Jesus himself: he says, Matt. xi. 27, "All things are 
given to me of my Father." This is also corroborated in 
Luke x. 22. Again, Ps. ii. 8. " Ask of me, and I shall 
give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utter- 
most parts of the earth for thy possession." Here is ano- 
ther expression as strong as it can well be. We have the 
fullest evidence that all things will be given to Jesus 
Christ ; yes, even the heathen : and has not he power to 
give eternal life to all as well as to a few? To the hea- 
then as well as to those who call themselves his saints? 
Yes : and is it not declared that he will ? He has greater 
power to give eternal life to the poor heathen than 10,000 
missionaries, who compass sea and land to make one pro- 
selyte, and when they have made him so, what have they 
done? May not Christ's words to the Pharisees, (Matt, 
xxiii. 15,) be applied here? " They make him two-fold 
more the child of hell than themselves !" Again, the apos- 
tle says, Heb. i. 2, " God hath in these last days spoken 
unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all 
things." But my opponent would have you believe that 
the adversary, or devil, if you please, that " goeth about 
as a roaring lion," is heir to most of the creatures whom 
God hath made. The apostle again says, Eph. i. 10, 
" That in the fullness of times he might gather together 
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and 
which are on earth ; even in him :" but my opponent says 
all things shall not be gathered in Christ. Again, Col. 



1S4 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

i. 19, 20, "For it pleased the Father that in him should 
all fullness dwell. And having made peace through the 
blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto him- 
self ; by him, 1 say, whether they he things in earth, or 
things in heaven. And you, that were sometime aliena- 
ted and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now 
hath he reconciled :" but my opponent tells you that all 
things shall not be reconciled. He, therefore, contends 
with the apostle not with me. Also in Rev. v. 13, " And 
every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and 
under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that 
are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and 
glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, 
and unto the Lamb forever and ever." Here is certainly 
as strong language as can be used to prove the restitution 
of all things : yea, if I were permitted to write just such 
testimony as I could wish in this case, and should such be 
admitted as evidence, I could not write in stronger or more 
universal terms ; but lest it should be misunderstood, he 
has detailed particularly every place; not only has he 
mentioned the saints in heaven, but every creature on the 
earth ; and, to be yet more explicit, he even says " under 
the earth, and such as are in the sea," and still, as though 
he foreknew his prophecy would be disputed, he puts it in 
yet stronger language, he says " and all that are in 
them." So, then, according to my opponent's explana- 
tion of the meaning of the evangelist, the language of those 
whom he says are to be eternally miserable, will be 
" Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto 
him" who appointed us to endure this never ending and 
constantly increasing torment ! for it is to be the language 
of those in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and in the sea. Now this, I think, will be admitted to be 
as positive testimony of the final salvation of all mankind, 
or of the restitution of all things, as any inferential, or im- 
plied, or positive testimony my opponent has yet produced, 
can be in favour of his doctrine. 



5 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — I think I have every text that my oppo- 
nent can possibly bring against me ; and in much better 
order, and better marshalled than they appear to be by 
him : and as I wish to do the argument upon which his 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 125 

doctrine is founded, full justice, when I come to that part 
where I purpose refuting them, and showing upon what a 
sandy foundation they stand, I shall take the arguments of 
those who are much better able to defend the doctrine than 
himself. I will select those arguments which are the best 
written, and those authors who have proved themselves 
the most able on this subject. The first on the list that I 
will notice is Dr. Chauncey, whose arguments are the 
strongest, as he was the greatest Universalist that ever 
attempted to defend the doctrine : but all things in their 
order. 

My opponent has quoted a passage from the Psalms 
where David is praising God for delivering him from 
the lowest hell ; then he asks, with an air of triumph, 
u Can there be any hell lower than the lowest?" Now I 
admit he had a right to ask such a question, and to make 
the most of the text to his own advantage that he could ; 
but he might have told you, and as he did not, I will, that 
by David's praising God for deliverance from hell, it is 
clearly implied that there was a time when he was not de- 
livered from it ; that there is a hell from which he was de- 
livered ; and that all did not experience the same deliver- 
ance. Thus, then, there are some who are delivered from 
it, and some who are not delivered from it : nor do we 
read they ever will be, but the reverse ; that they will re- 
main in it for ever and for ever. — But i am astonished 
that such a learned man as my opponent should conceive 
it necessary for David to be in hell in order to be deliver- 
ed from it. To be saved from going there he thought was a 
sufficient cause to draw forth his praise and gratitude. But 
my opponent ought to know that the deli verance which is here 
meant, is, that the Lord Jesus preserves his saints; that 
is, all believers, from going to hell ; and, therefore, they, 
like David, are delivered from it, although they do not go 
there ; of which deliverance they have an assurance in this 
life. But if we admit the explanation which my opponent 
has given us of this expression, it would not be correct : 
and I would ask, How did David know he was delivered 
from the lowest hell if it relates only to temporal afflic- 
tions? We find he suffered worse temporal calamities af- 
terwards. How then could it be the lowest? No, David 
did not desire to be delivered from temporal afflictions, 
knowing that all " work together for good to those who 
fear the Lord." 



126 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

In the same manner, all the passages which my oppo- 
nent has adduced, which he seems to think such positive 
testimony in his favour, and many more which are much 
stronger in his favour, and which I purpose noticing, (as 
I wish to help him all I can,) when I come to that part of 
my argument, may be proved, so far from contradicting 
the scriptures, that they rather go to establish the truth 
of the doctrine that the punishment of the wicked hereafter 
is an eternal punishment ; but as much seems to depend, 
with regard to the positive proofs, on the meaning of the 
term rendered/or ever, eternal, &c. it is necessary to show 
that it actually does mean eternal, perpetual, never-end- 
ing, and is applied to the existence and attributes of God. 
— But to come more correctly at the true meaning of it, 
when applied to the punishment of the wicked, we will 
examine all the varied meanings of this term, as it is used 
in the scriptures; and 1st. the word Cfyn eolam, as used 
in the original, is translated the wot Id, in Eccles. iii. 11. 
" Also, he hath set (eolam) the world in their heart, so 
that no man can find out the work that God maketh from 
the beginning to the end." Again, Ps. Ixxiii. 12, it is 
rendered in the world, "Behold these are the ungodly 
who prosper (oulam) in the world" In both these pas- 
sages the term has a limited meaning ; but no honest man 
would take these passages to prove, that, when applied in a 
different sense, it must also be limited. The 2d meaning 
attached to this term by the translators, is the duration of 
a man's life, as Exodus xxi. 6, " And he shall serve him 
(Ieolam) for ever; 99 that is as long as he lives. The 3d 
meaning of this term signifies a dispensation ; as in Matt. 
xxiv. 3, " What shall be the sign of thy coming and the 
end (jov *wos ton aionos) of the world 9" The Greek eu«» 
aion, is the same as the Hebrew ED^y olam.* The next 
rendering of this word is in Numb. xxv. 13, "Even the 

* The reporter writes the Hebrew without the points ; the pronun- 
ciation of Mr. M'Calla was different from what is here given. O, an- 
swering to the Hebrew j? oin, or the Greek &> omega, is pronounced long, 
as in aSip yp od oulam. Aim aion ; but when it answers to the Greek o 
omicron, as in the last syllable of niceyoc: aionos, atwios aionios, aueviov, aio- 
nion, &c. it is sounded short as in not. In the Hebrew words, i. e. all 
the original words from the Old Testament, make as many syllables as 
there are vowels : but in Greek, at ai. as in Aim aion ,- a ei, as in «? eis ,- oo 
oit, as in tow, tow?, ton, tous ,- &c. are dipthongs. The Hebrew words, 
which are written in the Hebrew characters, are read from right to left. 
These remarks may be of some use to the unlearned, and for them 
alone they are designed. There is no certain standard, however, of 
pronouncing even the Greek, much less that of the Hebrew. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 127 

covenant of an (oulam) everlasting priesthood." Again, 
Habakkuk iii. 6, " And the (od) everlasting mountains 
were scattered ; the (oulam) perpetual hills did bow : his 
ways are (oulam) everlasting," Again, Eccl. i. 4, u One 
generation passeth away and another generation cometh : 
but the earth ahideth (leoulam) /or ever, 9 * 

Now all these expressions have been acknowledged by 
President Edwards to be limited in their extent and sig- 
nification ; and none ever did deny this that I know of. I 
considered it of so little importance, (its being used in a 
limited sense when applied to the things of a transitory 
nature,) as affecting our argument, that I have given you 
the strongest of them myself: but my opponent seems to 
think, because it is used in a limited sense when applied 
to things that will pass away, that it must be used in a 
limited sense always, and concludes, therefore, that the 
proving of this amounts to a decision of the question. — 
But I beg leave to differ with my very learned opponent ; 
for I am of opinion that many passages produced where 
the term is used in a limited sense, as relating to this 
world, or the duration of a man's life, or a periodical dis- 
pensation, &c. cannot so easily as my opponent imagines 
decide this important question. 

We will show you a few passages where the same term 
is applied to the existence and attributes of God, and even 
my opponent, I suppose, will be willing to admit that it 
is not there used in a limited sense. Thus, [in Ps. xlv. 6,] 
¥ Thy throne, O God, is (oulam uod) for ever and ever* 
The sceptre of thy kingdom is aright sceptre." Here the ex- 
pression relates to eternity past, as well as to come. Again, 
[Ps. cii. 12,] " But thou, O Lord shall endure (leoulam) 
for ever, and thy remembrance unto all generations :" and 
v. 25, " Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the earthy 
and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall 
perish, but thou shalt endure : yea, all of them shall wax 
old like a garment ; as a vesture shalt thou change them, 
and they shall be changed, but thou art the same, and thy 
years shall have no end." 

These passages refer to eternity to come. Again, [La- 
men. v. 19,] *<Thou, O Lord, remainest (leoulam) for 
ever; thy throne from generation to generation." And 
[in Ps. xi. 2,] " Before the mountains were brought forth, 
or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the sea even from 
(oulam od oulam) everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." 
Here is both eternity past, and to come, represented. — 



128 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Again, [Rev. x. 5, 6,] " And the angel which I saw stand 
upon the sea and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to 
heaven ; and sware by him that liveth, (eis tous aionas 
ton aionon) fur ever and ever ; who created heaven, and 
the things that therein are, and the earth, and the tilings 
that therein are, and the sea, and the things that are there- 
in, that there should be time no longer." Now, as time 
is to be no longer — surely the term used here cannot 
apply to it, but must mean an endless duration. Again, 
[Ps. ciii. 17,] "But the mercy of the Lord is from (oulam 
nod oulam) everlasting to everlasting) upon them that fear 
him." This expression relates to past, present, and to 
come. Again, [Luke xviii. 29, 30,] " Verily I say unto 
you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or 
brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's 
sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present 
time, and in the world to come (zoen aionion) life ever- 
lasting." Now, here is what is to happen in the time spo- 
ken of, and in the world which is to come, when they are 
to receive everlasting life. Again, [Ps. x. 16,] "The 
Lord is King (oulam uod) for ever and ever: the heathen 
are perished out of the land." [Ps. cxlv. 13,] " Thy king- 
dom is (kalolamim) an everlasting kingdom : and thy do- 
minion endureth throughout all generations." Take no- 
tice, all those passages are used in such a connexion that 
they must mean an absolute eternity. [Dan. iv. 34] 
** And I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honour- 
ed him that liveth (olama)Jbr ever, whose dominion is an 
(olam) everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from gen- 
eration to generation." In addition to those passages 
which we before produced, where this term is applied to 
express eternity past, present, and to come, there is a pas- 
sage where it is connected with the very being and exis- 
tence of God. 

I shall now proceed to show that the existence, happi- 
ness, joy, and glory of those who enter heaven, will be as 
endless as the existence of God himself, and which, I pre- 
sume, my opponent will not deny. 

With regard to the eternal happiness of the saints, there 
are many passages where the same term is used to imply 
the eternity of their happiness as is applied to express the 
eternity of the existence of God, some of which I will now 
give you. [Dan. vii. 18,] Speaking of Christ's kingdom, 
the prophet says, " But the saints of the jEigh -;hall 

take the kingdom (od olamauod olam olamia, rendered in our 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 129 

translation) for ever, even for ever and ever," It does not 
say that any but the saints are to take it. We have rea- 
son, then, to conclude that the punishment of the wicked 
will be of equal duration, though some Universalists deny 
it. There are several other passages which speak of its 
being an everlasting salvation, [as Isa. xlv. 17] "But Is- 
rael shall be saved in the Lord with an (oulamim) everlast- 
ing salvation ; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded 
(od oulami od) world without end." In the verse preced- 
ing this it speaks of those who shall be ashamed and con- 
founded, and believers shall not be confounded, world, or 
time without end. Does it not follow that unbelievers 
shall be confounded, world, or time without end ? Again, 
they are spoken of as being the ransomed of the Lord, [Isa. 
xxxv. 10,] "And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, 
and come to Zion with songs and (oulam) everlasting joy 
upon their heads : they shall obtain joy and gladness, and 
sorrow and sighing shall flee away." It does not say those 
who are not ransomed shall obtain joy and gladness, and 
that they are to come to Zion: no, but it s^ys, "The unclean 
shall not pass over it." Now, will my opponent say (and 
if he should will you believe him) that this everlasting joy 
is only temporal? Again, [Dan. xii. 3] "And they that 
be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; 
and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars 
(leoulam uod) for ever and ever." 

Mow it is too true that some who are so over wise in 
their knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew, say that it will 
not bear the interpretation here given to the original, ren- 
dered in our common version for ever and ever, when ap- 
plied to the punishment of the wicked : even Grotius and 
others of the literary world have fallen into this error, to 
say the least of it : but we purpose to prove by several si- 
milar passages that the word cannot be rendered reason- 
ably in any other way ; and although the term has various 
significations accordingto the connexion in which it is used, 
yet when applied to the punishment of the wicked, it has 
the same extent of meaning as it has when applied to the 
existence of God, the eternity of Christ's kingdom, and the 
final happiness of his saints. This I shall show by paral- 
lelisms contained in the scriptures, and by doctrinal pa- 
rallels, as [Jer. xxiii. 40,] "And I will bring an (oulam) 
everlasting reproach upon you, and a (oulam) perpetual 
shame, which shall not be forgotten." Now here is an 
explanation of the term, for one part of the scriptures ex- 

IT 



130 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

plains another, and we have reason to suppose that when 
it says a perpetual shame not to he forgotten, it means, 
according to the scriptures, one not to be forgiven. For 
it is said, Heb. viii. 12, "For I will be merciful to their 
unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I 
remember no more." What does he mean when he says 
I will remember their sins and iniquities no more ? Does 
he mean that he will condemn them for ever? No, he will 
pardon them ; and the term " no more" means the opposite 
to "for ever ;" or as if he had said, I will have their sins 
and iniquities in remembrance never. Now apply this to 
the passage above, " And they that turn many to righ- 
teousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever." 
Now does not this convey the same idea of duration of 
time as never? Thus we have proved from the parallel 
structure of the passage, that the import of it is an abso- 
lute eternity. 

We spoke of explaining the term by parallel passages 
of the scriptures, by such as have a bearing on each other 
according to Hebrew poetry, not in a doctrinal point of 
view, but in agreement with the idiom of the Jews : thus, 
first, in opposition to last, agree ; ever in opposition to 
Twver, &c. ; but I will not read the several passages where 
they occur, for fear my antagonist, thinking that I am not 
learned enough, should hand me one of his translations to 
assist me. 

It may not be improper, however, to say something on 
the doctrine of parallelisms; but I will previously make one 
or two remarks upon the manner in which this discussion 
has been conducted. For my part, I had as leave the Uni- 
versalist would say what he pleases, or hiss, or clap, as 
not: as I take no offence from any body, so I here declare 
I do not wish to pass a reflection upon any decent man, al- 
though he be a Universalist. Therefore, should I say any 
thing in my remarks calculated to hurt their feelings, I 
hope they will believe it is unintentional. Whenever I 
come here it is with a heartfelt prayer to God that I may 
do nothing, that I may say nothing, but what is calcula- 
ted to promote the cause of His glorious truth, and in the 
fear of God, to leave every feeling, and every thing be- 
hind me which is foreign from the subject in discussion ; 
and with a determination, with the Holy Spirit strength- 
ening me, that I will not knowingly hurt the feelings of any 
one, not even of my opponent; nor have I, until he render- 
ed it necessary for me to make my defence against the ex- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 131 

pressions he threw out against me and my countrymen, 
the Kentuckians; and the remarks which I have made 
have only been to show them that we are not quite so ig- 
norant in Kentucky as my opponent has been led to sup- 
pose, or would lead you to suppose. I have, therefore, 
returned his witticisms in his own way ; ami though I 
will not intentionally wound the feelings of him, nor of 
his followers, by any personal reflections, I will not spare 
his doctrines, nor his abominable translation of the New 
Testament; because they are before the public, and may 
be considered public works, though void of all learning 
and goodness in any shape. But to return to the argu- 
ment wherein I purpose proving the absolutely eternal 
punishment of the wicked by parallel passages of the scrip- 
ture. 

[Dan. xii. 2,] "And many of them that sleep in the dust 
of the earth shall awake, someto(oulam) everlasting life, and 
some to shame and (oulam) everlasting contempt." Now 
this is explained by the Hebrews to mean an absolute eter- 
nity, a time without any limit or duration aw-^vav awm 
aischunen aionion, eternal contempt : and by the doctrinal 
parallels of scripture we learn, that this must mean as long 
as God exists. 

We shall endeavour to examine the opinion of those 
who have treated on this subject ; but to get the true 
meaning to a certainty, we will not depend on the opinion, 
koi' the translations of men ; hut to give you an opportuni- 
ty of judging for yourselves, whether I am correct, or my 
opponent, we will examine other passages in the scrip- 
tures. Now, take notice, it is those who sleep that shall 
arise. The same sleep Paul describes (l Cor. xv. 51) 
to be the sleep of death. In 1 Cor. xv. 3, Paul says, 
"For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also 
received, how that Christ died for our sins according to 
the scriptures." And in John viii. 24, "I said therefore 
unto you that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe 
not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Now observe 
that the sleep in the dust of the earth is compared to death 
—-that all are to awake from that sleep, or to be raised 
from that death — that Jesus Christ died for those who 
believe, but those who do not believe will die in their sins. 
Then I ask, from these parallel passages of scripture, 
does it require much argument to prove that the believers 
are to awake to everlasting life, and the unbelievers to 
everlasting shame and contempt? We will now proceed 



132 THEOLOGICAL BISCUSSIO]*. 

to examine, by doctrinal parallelism, those passages of 
scripture which relate to the resurrection to life, and en- 
deavour to prove that those who awake to everlasting life, 
arise in Christ at the resurrection, and that not on our own 
account, but on account of what the Lord Jesus has done 
for us ; that is, for those who believe. Paul preached of 
and suffered for the hope which he had through the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ from the dead. (Acts, xxiii. 6.) 
Peter and John suffered persecution, because they «' preach- 
ed through Jesus the resurrection from the dead." Now, 
is it to be supposed, when the apostles spoke of the effica- 
cy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that they meant 
that there was any efficacy in the resurrection of his mate- 
rial body, or that they attached it to his body materially? 
— no, but through the virtue of his resurrection, and the 
virtue which Christ imparts to those who believe. Those 
persons who wish to attach but little glory to the Lord 
Jesus, wish us to believe that this virtue of his resurrec- 
tion has no effect till the last day, and souls of men re- 
main in the grave, in a state of unconsciousness, till they 
are raised again from the dead. But we believe that when 
the breath leaves the body, the soul departs to its destined 
place — either to eternal happiness or eternal misery ; that 
our Lord came down from heaven and ascended, and that 
all those whom the Father hath given him, when their 
souls leave their mortal tenement, will be received by him 
into glory, and there remain till they are reunited with 
their bodies. [John vi. 37—40,] "All that the Father 
giveth me, shall come to me : and him that conieth to me 
1 will in no wise cast out; for I came down from heaven 
not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me; 
and this is the will of him that sent me, that of all which 
he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise 
him up again at the last day : and this is the will of him 
that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and be- 
lieveth on him, may have *ia>vw everlasting life : and I will 
raise him up at the last day." 

Here it is plainly understood that all are not given to 
him, therefore, will not have that everlasting life. Again, 
believers are spoken of as being drawn to Christ; [John 
vi. 44,] " No man can come to me, except the Father 
which hath sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at 
the last day." Therefore, none are ever raised up, at the 
last day, but such as are drawn, i. e. they are drawn by 
the influence of the Holy Spirit; as in Rom. viii. 11, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 133 

" iBut if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the 
dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead 
shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by his spirit, that 
dwelleth in you." But all will not be quickened by his 
Spirit, for some shall die in their sins without being 
drawn, and they will not be raised to dwell with Christ. 
This is positively declared in John viii. 21, "l go my 
way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins : — 
whither I go, ye cannot come." Now, you all know, that 
these words which were spoken by Jesus Christ, were true, 
for how many are cut off by death, in as impenitent and 
unregenerated a state, as they lived. Yes, my friends, 
dreadful as the idea is, there are millions who die in their 
sins and who will never taste of the joy of the saints ; no 
matter what my opponent may say to the contrary. The 
truth of God will stand, and none can stay his decrees. — 
For he does not say that he will raise those up who live 
and die without being quickened or drawn to him by the 
influence of the Holy Spirit. 

Believers are said to have hope in God ; as in 1 Peter i. 
21, " Who by him do believe in God. that raised him up 
from the dead, and gave him glory ; that your faith and 
hope might be in God ;" and those whom he will raise up 
are said to believe; [John vi. 40 ] "Every one which 
seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting 
life, and I will raise him up at the last day." But never 
does he say he will raise up unbelievers through the vir- 
tue of his resurrection. 

In another passage, Jesus declares himself to be the 
resurrection ; John xi. 25, " I am the resurrection, and 
the life : he that believeth in me, though he were dead, 
yet shall he live." This evidently means a spiritual life; 
but he does not say it is for unbelievers. No, we have no 
reason to believe that unbelievers will enjoy this spiritual 
life, but this we believe, that 

5i o'clock. 

Mr, Kneeland. — I sincerely trust and hope, that by this 
time, our discussion is drawing to a close, as my opponent 
appears to be coming to the main point upon which this 
discussion must ultimately turn. It has been already 
stated Sy him, and very justly, in which statement I 
most cordially agree, that the positive proofs (as he calls 
them) depend much upon the correct meaning of the ori- 



134 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

ginal terms, particularly those of the Greek, rendered for 
ever, everlasting, and eternal, in the common version of 
our Bibles. Mow, I wish this audience distinctly to un- 
derstand, that these terms are all from the same root or 
primitive word, and when rendered in our common ver- 
sion eternal, or everlasting, it is precisely the same word 
in the original, without any variation, but they are never 
used in an unlimited sense, except when they are connected 
with things which are unlimited in their nature : but, be- 
fore I proceed to notice this particular, I shall notice a 
few items which I have upon my minutes, and which I had 
not time to take notice of before. 

My opponent said, in your hearing, this afternoon, when 
speaking with regard to his idea of a future world, and of 
the meaning of the word Hell, that the word in the origi- 
nal, (if I understood him) was y*m* gehenna, in the ac- 
count of the rich man and Lazarus, which, in the original, 
i s cub* hades/ (this does not argue any great acquaintance 
with the original language of the scriptures !) and he pro- 
duced this passage, which relates the account of the rich 
man and Lazarus, between whom there is an impassable 
gulph ; and, that he called upon me, if I were able to ex- 
plain it, to do so, but that I did not say one word about 
it. Then he asks, " Who cannot perceive the reason of 
his silence on this passage?" Now, observe, he has the 
answer ready, and he gives it you : " It is an impassable 
gulph and it cannot be got over." 

The truth is, this is a misunderstanding altogether ; I 
did not hear my opponent call upon me to explain it, nor 
was I aware that he had done so until I was informed of 
it during the intermission, and, even then, I thought it so 
irrelevant to the subject in discussion, that I do not know 
that I should have noticed it now, if I had not been in- 
lormed that many laid more stress upon my not noticing 
it, than I really think the passage deserves, particularly 
in relation to this discussion ; and, as I do not want to 
take up your time in useless digression, if I had not been 
particularly requested, I do n#t know that I should have 
noticed it at all. However, as I have an opportunity I 
will attend, for a few minutes, to the subject ; but, instead 
of entering into a minute examination of the parable, as it 
would occupy too much of your time to little purpose, and 
as it is so foreign from the subject of our debate, I will 
only say, that when my opponent is prepared to show, 
from the passage, that Abraham was in heaven, or, that 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 135 

Abraham's bosom means heaven, I will then show what 
this impassable gulph means, which was between them. 

I am very willing to acknowledge all that my opponent 
ought to wish me to acknowledge, as to the meaning of 
the term translated hell in this place, «<fw hades, that hell 
where the rich man was supposed to be; but my opponent 
must agree with me, that the same Greek word, hades, 
represented the place or state of all the dead, both good 
and bad, where both Abraham and the rich man were sup- 
posed to be, when this real or supposed conversation took 
place between them. Therefore, he must agree with me, 
that Abraham was in a<r»? hades as well as the rich man. 
In fact, the whole scene is laid upon a plain, which was 
supposed to be under ground ; every word in the original, 
signifying motion, implies that the places each side of the 
gulph, were on a level with each other; there is not one 
word which conveys the idea of ascending or of descending, 
but every expression implies distance and not height nor 
depth : you read of Lazarus being carried away, but it 
does not say he was carried up, &c. and this appears still 
more clearly in the Greek than in our version. Now, 
whenever we read, in the scriptures, of heaven, it is always 
connected with expressions implying ascension — as " The 
Lord was received up into Heaven." " If I ascend up in- 
to Heaven." And Hell is always represented as being 
below, as " Deeper than Hell" — " Go down to Hell — 
" Cast angels down to Hell." But, in this parable, every 
verb which implies motion, signifies that the motion is on 
a level, as " They which would pass from hence to you, 
cannot, neither can they pass to us, that would come from 
thence." 

Now, is there one word which implies ascending or de- 
scending in this ? If there is, I confess I cannot see it. — 
I will, however, refer you to a respectable author on this 
subject, whom my opponent himself named ; but I have 
had no occasion to name him till this minute : I mean the 
celebrated and learned Dr. Campbell, who, in his Pre- 
lim in. Disser. has told us explicitly, that the Greek 
word ctfoc hades, in his "judgment, ought never, in scrip- 
ture, to be rendered Hell, at least in the sense wherein 
that word is now universally understood by christians." 

In the Old Testament, the corresponding word is 7^t# 
sheol, which signifies the state of the dead in general, with- 
out regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their 
happiness or misery. In translating that word, the LXX. 



136 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

have almost invariably used *<J»c hades. " The state is 
always represented under those figures which suggest 
something dreadful, dark, and silent, about which the 
most prying eye, and listening ear, can acquire no infor- 
mation. The term *<f« hades is well adapted to express 
this idea. To this the word hell in its primitive significa- 
tion, perfectly corresponded. For at first, it denoted on- 
ly what was secret or concealed." Now this was the opi- 
nion of Dr. Campbell, who certainly was not a Universal- 
list, but a believer in the very doctrines my opponent ad- 
vocates, and was a man of much learning, which, I sup- 
pose, my opponent is willing to admit. — But, after all, 
whether we understand the account to be a parable or a 
history, there is not one word in it with regard to the du- 
ration of the torment of the rich man, and, therefore, con- 
tains no argument in favour of an " absolutely eternal pun- 
ishment." 

The first speech of my opponent this afternoon, so far 
from containing sound argument, was, part of the time, a 
mere play upon words. Because I quoted the passage in 
Heb. xii. 29, where it says, ki Our God is a consuming 
fire," he wishes you to understand that I hold that the 
fire of hell must be unquenchable ; and that because 
all fire consumes, jand God is a consuming fire, there- 
fore all consuming fire must be God. 1 admit that 
when speaking of the fire of hell, i. e. of material 
fire, in the scriptures, it means a fire that was never 
put out, but it does not mean that the material fire was 
unquenchable in its nature; but that fire which is figu- 
ratively alluded to, when it is said ** Our God is a consum- 
ing fire," cannot be quenched, or else God might cease to 
exist, which cannot be. 

This material fire which is spoken of by the prophet 
Isaiah, and which is quoted by Mark, ix. 43, is the fire of 
ytmdL Gehenna, i. e. the fire in the valley of the son of Hin- 
nom, a place where a perpetual fire was kept up to con- 
sume the carcases which were left there unburied, upon 
which the worms preyed ; and you will find that this is 
the meaning of both passages, by comparing them together. 
It reads in Isaiah, lxvi. 24, thus : H And they shall go forth, 
and* look upon the carcases of the men that have trans- 
gressed against me : for their worm shall not die, neither 
shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an abhor- 
ring unto all flesh." And in Mark ix. " To go into hell, 
into the fire that shall never be quenched: where their worm 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 13^ 

dieth not and their fire is not quenched." Now I wish to 
know whether it was to be in time or in eternity, when 
they should go forth and look upon the carcases of the men 
that have transgressed ? And whether it was in time or 
or in eternity when they should be an abhorring unto all 
flesh ? Will any be in the flesh in eternity ? Is eternity to 
be the place where their worm dieth not and the fire is not 
quenched ? Or is not Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnam 
that is meant where the perpetual fire was kept up ? The 
reason why we quoted the passage in Mark was to show 
that the idea intended to be conveyed is the same, though 
there is some little difference in the words. My opponent 
will admit that the words in the prophecy do not refer to 
a future state, but mean a fire that may be quenched : then 
why should they here mean any thing else when the idea 
is only borrowed from the prophet and expressed in near- 
ly the same language? The most learned have not proved, 
neither will they ever attempt to prove that yanct Gehenna, 
(which is nothing more than a corruption of the Hebrew 
words Q^n tf*J gia hinnom,') in the Old Testament has 
any reference to any other place than the valley of hinnom, 
the name of a person who was once the possessor of it. 
It was not then a place of punishment, and is never spo- 
ken of as such in the Old Testament ; but in time, how- 
ever, it became the place where those abominable sacrifi- 
ces were offered to the idol Moloch, to which they sacrificed 
their first born children. 

In order to put an end to these horrid sacrifices, the 
good king Josiah defiled the place, and rendered it a 
place of so much abhorrence, that the name conveyed to 
the mind of the Jews an idea of that which they consider- 
ed of all things the most detestable. You will find, (that 
is, those who have an opportunity,) by referring to a trans- 
lation of the scriptures published in the time of Elizabeth, 
called the Bishop's bible, that the Jews had four modes of 
capital punishment, viz. hanging, beheading, stoning, and 
burning alive, and from this last, i. e. the mode of burn- 
ing alive, the fire of Gehenna, or hell fire, took its origin* 
You will also find on examination that there are many 
passages in the gospel of Mark introduced to explain He- 
braisms, which are not to be found in Matthew, who, it is 
supposed, wrote at Jerusalem for the benefit of the Jew- 
ish converts, and, therefore, no particular explanation of 
those terms were necessary : but Mark is supposed to have 
written his gospel either at Alexandria in Egypt, or by 

18 



138 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 

others at Rome in Italy ; at either of which places it was 
uecessary to explain to the people some terms not explain- 
ed by Matthew, who wrote in Jerusalem, to the Jews, and 
who understood what he said without any explanation : for 
many words which were very familiar to the people of Ju- 
dea, would not he so well understood in those distant 
countries ; hence Mark was obliged to explain those terms ; 
because the people for whom he wrote would not have 
otherwise understood them. Hence the first time Mark 
uses the term Jordan, he thought it necessary to tell them 
it was the river Jordan that he meant; and so when he 
uses the word " corban," that is, says he, a gift ; " de- 
filed," that is, with unwashen hands, &c. ; explanations 
no where to be found in Matthew. So when he has occa- 
sion to use the word ymv* Gehenna, as they did not under- 
stand the term, he has to explain it to them ; and how does 
he do it ? By quoting the prophet Isaiah lxvi. 24, where 
the same form of expression is used ; i. e. by explaining to 
them that it is tjie place "where their worm dieth not, and 
the fire is not quenched," which are rather to be consider- 
ed as the words of the evangelist, and not as the words of 
Jesus Christ: for we do not find a similar explanation in 
the parallel text in Matthew, which you may easily see 
for yourselves by comparing Matt. v. 29, — xviii. 8, with 
Mark ix. 43, 44. 

We will now take not ice of a remark made by my opponent, 
and upon which he laid strong emphasis. I mean those 
passages which speak of the sin against the Holy Ghost, 
which, it is said, shall never be forgiven : and my oppo- 
nent says, "shall we who use the words of the Lord Jesus 
he considered as holding false opinions and preaching a 
false doctrine ?" Now let us see what the Lord Jesus says. 
He says, Matt. xii. 31, 32, and Mark iii. 29, " All man- 
ner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men :" 
or, as it is in Mark, " All sins shall be forgiven unto the 
sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall 
blaspheme." These are the words of Christ. Now I ask, 
does not this include those who blaspheme against the Ho- 
ly Ghost ? My opponent may say I am uncandid because 
1 did not read all the passage ; but you will observe that 
there is a colon here, which shows that the sense is com- 
plete without any addition : but let us see what follows : 
" But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath 
never forgiveness, but is in danger of &u»mu upmns, render- 
ed in the common version, eternal damnation." Now what 
are we to understand by this ? Are we to understand that 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 139 

when it is said, " all manner of blasphemy wherewith men 
should blaspheme should be forgiven," that this was not 
known to be a sin, and that it is to be an exception to their 
final forgiveness ? My opponent and I are perfectly agreed 
with respect to the meaning being the same in Mark as in 
Matthew ; we have only to ascertain the true meaning of 
one, and we have the meaning of the other : if, for in- 
stance, the expression aionian judgment, or eternal dam- 
nation means an endless punishment in another world in 
one, of course the coming age, or world, means the same 
in the other : but if it does not mean so in Matthew, why 
should the parallel passage in Mark mean so? For the 
idea intended to be conveyed in both passages is the same, 
the difference is only in words. The continuation of the 
passage in Matthew is, " But the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whoso- 
ever speaketh a word against the Son of man it shall be 
forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against the Holy 
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, 
neither in the world to come." Now does this make any 
difference in the idea? Certainly not. It means an inde- 
finite time. — Suppose, for instance, an inspired prophet 
were to say that all men should die, — would that be un- 
true? But suppose he were to add, not this year nor the 
next, — would that destroy the truth of what he first said, 
that they should die at some period ? Certainly not. So 
in Matthew it is expressly stated, and we believe it true, 
that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven : 
but because it is afterwards added that the " blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven neither in 
this nor the coming age," (for that is the meaning of the 
original,) it does not destroy the truth of the first state- 
ment, that it shall, at some period be forgiven. It all de- 
pends, as my opponent has acknowledged, upon the mean- 
ing of the words ovn «v tout© t» ztwi, ovn tv to juixxovrt rendered 
in the common version, "neither in this world, neither in 
the wo7id to come :" for if they mean to an absolute eter- 
nity, without any end, my opponent has the argument — 
we need say nothing more. 

He has already given you the term *twt:v, which is the 
term rendered eternal, Mark iii. 29, and has told you it is 
capable of various meanings according as it is applied ; 
that " when it is applied to the attributes or the existence 
of God, it implies eternal, perpetual, never ending," &c. 
and quoted several passages where he admits it is used in 



140 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 

a limited sense, as, " during the period of a man's life," &c. 
thus he has given you the meaning that I wish to attach 
to it, that when it is applied to God it means absolutely 
eternal, without beginning or end ; because God is abso- 
lutely eternal ; but when it is applied to a perishable thing, 
it means no longer than that thing can exist ; as when ap- 
plied to a man's life, it means so long as that man should 
live. Now what has my opponent got to prove in order 
to establish his doctrine of an absolutely eternal punish- 
ment ? He quoted Matt. xxv. 46, " and these shall go 
away into (aionion) everlasting punishment," &c. but 
he must prove to you that the punishment here alluded to 
is in its nature as absolutely eternal as God is absolute- 
ly eternal ; but this which he ought to have proved, he 
takes for granted. If there were any necessity for this 
punishment being carried into a future state of existence, 
it would be more reasonable for him to do so, but there is 
none, and the two doctrines would give God two very op- 
posite characters. The character that the doctrine for 
which I contend gives him, is that of the relation which a 
father bears towards a son whom he corrects for his good, 
though he loves that son while lie corrects him, and this is 
the character given of him in the scriptures ; as in Job v. 
17, "Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth, 
therefore despise not the chastisement of the Almighty.'* 
And in Ps. iii. 12, " For whom the Lord loveth he cor- 
recteth, even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." 
But the character given to him by my opponent's doctrine, 
is that of a being who punishes his helpless offspring be- 
cause he hateth them, and that this is the character of a 
good being I cannot conceive. I have no idea that the 
punishing of a man by burning him to an absolute eterni- 
ty can possibly do him any good, nor have I any idea that 
his being consigned to a place of endless misery in a future 
state of existence, can be for his good. No, my hearers, 
it cannot be supposed that a being who is represented as 
pouring out his wrath on his helpless creatures to an end- 
less eternity, can mean it for their good: admitting for a 
a moment that it is so, what is it for ? Is it for their 
amendment? My opponent does not say so : no, he can- 
not say it would be for the good of the guilty who suffer it, 
nor for the glory of him who inflicts it : but if it were so, 
I ask, would it be as a father corrects his son, one whom 
he loves ? When my opponent can show this to be the case, 
then I will admit it may be -> and although it may be ne» 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 141 

cessary in human governments to punish the guilty, even 
to the extinction of their lives, no one will presume to say 
that this is necessary with God : and did human govern- 
ments possess the power which God possesses, of reform- 
ing the hearts and dispositions, without such punishment, 
they would not resort to it ; but it is because they cannot 
do so that they sentence the criminal to the gallows, which 
is certainly not for his good, but as a terror and example 
to others : it is a necessity which cannot be said to exist 
with God, but grows out of the weakness of all human 
laws, which cannot reform the incorrigible sinner : it may 
destroy him ; but God does not destroy the existence of his 
creatures, but he says [Jer. xxxi. 3] " I have loved thee 
with an everlasting love, and with loving kindness have I 
drawn thee :" and again, Isa. xlv. 17, "Ye shall not be 
ashamed nor confounded world without end." Let 
my opponent show you a passage where it says the wicked 
shall remain wicked world without end ! If he cannot, 
we have shown what we desire to show, that there will be 
a time when they will be no longer wicked, consequently, 
they must be happy: for I admit, and most cordially 
agree with my opponent, that the punishment will exist so 
long as they remain wicked. Let him, then, show that 
the sinner will remain wicked to an absolute eternity, and 
he has the argument: for if wickedness exist to an absolute 
eternity, punishment necessarily must. 

In relation to the passage which I quoted from the 
Psalms, where David is returning thanks to God because 
he had delivered his " soul from the lowest hell," Ps. 
lxxxvi. 13, it has been said by my opponent that I cannot 
show that David ever was in hell, and that he only was 
praising God because he had been preserved from going 
there. Now turn to Ps. cxvi. 3, and we there find the 
Psalmist declaring that " the pains of hell" had actually 
got hold of him. Now if the pains of hell had actually 
got hold of him, will it do to say that he returned thanks 
to God that he had preserved him from going into hell, or 
that he had not been there ; and, that a wiser than David 
thought this hell was in this world, can be shown — nay, 
I can show you from his writings, that he actually points 
out the very place where this hell existed, and that in this 
world : but my minutes are out — if, however, the modera- 
tors will permit me I will just read the passage.— [Mr, 
M'Calla rose, and while he was ascending the stairs, Mr, 
Kneeland said] — If my opponent objects, I will give up. 



142 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



6 o'clock. 



Mr. M'Calla. — There are two or three things, my 
friends, that I will make a remark on relating to the ob- 
servations which my opponent made when he was last up, 
one is, that the scriptures say, "whosoever speaketh against 
the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven, neither in this 
world, neither in the world to come." And my opponent 
seems inclined to think, and wishes you to understand, 
that as the blasphemer is only in danger of damnation, it 
was not certain he would be damned, but he might escape 
this danger. 

Now, suppose that a father was sick, and some one 
meeting his son near the house, were to ask how his father 
was ; the son should answer he is very bad, and the phy- 
sician says, he is in great danger — five minutes after, you 
see the man and you think that there is every likelihood 
of his recovery. Now, would you not think, that it would 
be one way or the other? either that he was in danger, or 
he was not. But, suppose the physician was certain that 
the man was in great danger, and admitting that he were, 
as God is, omniscient, would it not amount to a certainty 
that the man would die ? Did not Jesus Christ then, when 
lie told those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, or deny the 
Lord Jesus, know that they were in danger of eternal 
damnation? and did he not know that this danger amounted 
to a certainty ? Certainly he did. Who can deny this ? 
Who does deny it but those unbelievers whom he was then 
threatening with this punishment? There are some words 
in the original Greek, which are rendered eternal, in our 
common version, and there are others which only imply 
it, but, at the same time, are sufficiently strong to point 
out the eternal destruction of the sinner, and, because I 
admitted that they had various significations, accordingly 
as they were used, and that they are sometimes used in a 
limited sense, my opponent wished you to understand, as 
a matter of course, that when applied to the punishment 
of the wicked, they must mean that it shall take place in 
time and not in eternity. 

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, my oppo- 
nent thinks that I was under the impression the word was 
yim* Gehenna, but he can hardly suppose that I have met 
the word so often without knowing what it was. The re- 
marks which he made about Gehenna, are entirely irrele* 



THEOLOGICAX DISCUSSION. 143 

vant, and have no bearing whatever on the subject, unless 
he thought that this word often translated Hell, which 
was taken from the valley of Hinnom, has no other mean- 
ing than a bare literal reference to that place, which is 
certainly what he intended you to understand ; and, he 
says, " that in the time of Elizabeth, (if 1 recollect right- 
ly) there was a version of the scriptures called the Bish- 
op's Bible, which stated that there were four modes of 
capital punishment, namely, Hanging, Beheading, Ston- 
ing, and Burning alive, and from this last, the fire of Ge- 
henna took its origin." 

I attended to a part of his learned remarks upon this 
subject, and to a part I did not attend, for they appeared 
to me, so foreign from the point, that I did not think them 
worthy of it. If, however, the worm which dieth not 
mean, as my opponent says it does, the common worm 
which preyed upon the literal carcases of those who were 
literally cast into the valley of Hirmom, how can he recon- 
cile it with that valley of Hinnom of which the prophet 
Isaiah speaks, he represents those creatures which were 
cast into that valley as devoured by very different animals 
to worms. He says, Jer. vii. 33, u And the carcases of 
this people shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for 
the beasts of the earth, and none shall fray them away." 
Now, here you will observe, that when speaking of the 
carcases of the people which were to be left in the valley 
of Hinnom, the prophet says that they were *f to be meat 
for the fowls of heaven and beasts of the earth ;" instead 
of which, my opponent says, thej* are to be meat for the 
worm that dieth not — therefore, the prophet says one thing 
and my opponent another. Which should we believe — 
him ? The prophet says, instead of being eaten by the 
worm that dieth not, they are to be eaten by the fowls of 
heaven and by the beasts of the field. Now, who does not 
see a great difference between them ? The prophet is 
speaking of a valley where the dead carcases were thrown 
to be preyed upon by fowls and beasts; if by literal worms 
it was by worms that you all know do die, and by mate- 
rial fire that you all know is quenched ; but the evange- 
list was speaking of a place where they shall endure tor- 
ment, where the fire is not quenched, and the worm dieth 
not ; no, nor ever will. 

My opponent has been very unfortunate in the selection 
of this passage from the prophet, as a parallel passage to 
Mark's, for it proves directly the reverse of what he in- 



144 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOX. 

tended to prove by it. It puts me much in mind of a fact 
of a similar kind, which happened some time ago ; a man 
in my own country was as anxious to prove that there was 
no occasion to be regenerated, or born again, as my oppo- 
nent is to prove that there is no future punishment ; and, 
to effect this, he took, for his text, that passage [in John 
iii. 3,] where our Lord said unto the Pharisee, Nicodemus, 
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ;" and yet, he 
tried to prove from this very text, that a man need not 
be born again to see the kingdom of God. Suppose we 
examine this doctrine a little, for it is a new one. That 
God has created of one blood all the nations of the earth, 
is true ; but this passage only relates to their natural 
birth ; other passages in the scriptures speak of a spirit- 
ual birth, as this in John. To Nicodemus it was as strange 
as it is to some of our moderns, and therefore he asks this 
question : " How can a man be born when he is old %" A 
very natural question from a carnal mind. Our Lord then 
told him it was a spiritual birth that he meant. *' Except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter," 
&c. and he went on to prove that we are not born of blood, 
but it is the Spirit which is the life within us : therefore, 
as we have life, of course we are born of the Spirit, thus, 
the one who wants to prove that he is not born of blood, 
proves the very contrary of what he intended to prove — 
namely, that to have life, we mean spiritual, he must have 
received the Spirit which giveth this life. 

Just so is my opponent situated with respect to what he 
wanted to prove of the fire of the valley of Hinnom, viz : 
That it was the fire to which Mark alluded, and that the 
worm which preyed upon the carcases, was meant, by the 
worm that will not die: but, he proved the very reverse, 
for he proved that it was a material fire that can be 
quenched, and that it was a worm, which you all know 
does die, which was alluded to by the prophet in the valley 
of Hinnom : therefore, it cannot be the unquenchable fire, 
and the worm that dieth not, which Mark said would tor- 
ment blasphemers for ever. 

Again, with respect to the gulf which he would have 
you believe means nothing but a division of sentiment, and 
that it is all figurative of what is to happen in time, and 
upon the earth ; forgetting, or appearing to forget, that 
what is there stated, happened after each of the parties 
had died — and it is stated of one of them, that he was bu- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 145 

lied, and the other was carried by angels into Abraham's 
bosom : therefore, all he has said upon that subject, 
amounts to no argument at all. 

Dr. Chauncey, who, I before observed, was the greatest 
writer in their favor that ever wrote, and who certainly 
produced stronger arguments than my opponent, tried to 
do this away, but without success. This gulf is not to be 
passed : it cannot be got over. 

When my opponent was speaking on this subject, I 
must admit I was paying but so little attention to what 
lie said, that all I heard, was, that I must prove, to es- 
tablish my position, that Abraham and Lazarus were not 
in Hades; for if they were in Hades, of course they were 
where the rich man was ; and so, necessarily, they must 
have shared his punishment, admitting the term «<r»? Hades 
to mean Hell, as we understand it. The truth, is, the 
whole of the scene took place in that state to which the 
soul departs when it leaves the body, as the term Hades 
implies, the state of the dead. But, it does not follow, that 
they went to the same part of the invisible world ; in fact, 
we have evidence to the contrary ; but that they went to 
different apartments ; the one who had his evil things in 
this world, to dwell in Abraham's bosom, and the other, 
who had his good things, to a place of torment. So, that 
whatever meaning we attach to the term Hades, it is evi- 
dent, from the particular description given of the state of 
each, after they left this world, that there was a vast dif- 
ference in their situations ,* and I humbly think that these 
accounts, which Universalists are so disposed to call para- 
bles, will prove to be real histories of the happiness of the 
saints, and of the eternal torment of unbelievers. What, 
I would ask, is there in this account at all parabolical ? 
What is it more than a plain historical narration ? We 
find that the " poor man died, and was carried by angels 
to Abraham's bosom — the rich man died and was buried." 
It is all very plain. And that the rich man in hell, lifted 
up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Lazarus in Abra- 
ham's bosom. And the rich man begged Abraham to send 
Lazarus to touch his parched tongue with his finger, for 
he was tormented in thejlame. 

But, what does Abraham say? That the rich man had 
his good things in this life, and Lazarus his evil things — 
but now Lazarus is comforted and he is tormented. 

Now, is there any thing in all this but what is plainly 
historical ? The fact, that the wicked receiye their good 

19 



146 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

things in this life, and the good receive evil tilings, has 
fallen under each of your observations, and has been veri- 
fied in ten thousand cases. Knowing this to be an histori- 
cal fact, we have every reason to believe the other is, 
which is designed to inform us of the two distinct states in 
another world — thus Lazarus is said to be in Abraham's 
bosom, the very place, where, of all others, I should like 
to be — and the place where all Christians desire to go ; to 
be in the bosom of the faithful, is their strongest hope — 
their most earnest desire — as was the case with David, 
when he said [Ps. xlii. 2,] " My soul thirsteth for God, 
the living God : when shall I come and appear before 
God ?" It was this place, the bosom of Abraham, by 
which is set forth the kingdom of Christ, or the heaven 
that David's soul panted after when he went up with those 
who were worshipping God, looking forward to the time 
when he would be with him ; not in this world, but in 
heaven ; and, contrary to the opinion of my opponent, 
who would have you believe that God, is a God of the 
dead, but not of the living. 

This is not the opinion of believers ; their hope leads 
them to look forward to the moment when they will leave 
this body to dwell for ever with the Lord Jesus in heaven : 
and, my friends, wherever the Lord Jesus is, it is heaven 
to me ; and 1 would gladly and cheerfully die this hour to 
be with him. It is what my soul, like David's, pants af- 
ter, and this eager desire we should not have if we thought 
when we died we were to remain in a quiescent state. No, 
David had, and like him, every believer has, all the evi- 
dence that a soul needs, that when it quits this body, it 
goes immediately to a place of happiness. 

This foretaste of heaven believers enjoy on earth, as 
Paul says, Philippians, i. 21, " For to me to live is Christ, 
and to die is gain," Again, 23, " For I am in a strait 
betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with 
Christ ; which is far better." Can any suppose that Paul 
thought it far better to be in the grave ? He said it was 
better for him to depart and to be with Jesus than to re- 
main here on earth ; and not as the Universalist says, that 
it is better for us to remain here ; for when we die we go 
to the silent grave ; and that the spiritual happiness which 
we enjoy here is all that we shall have till the resurrec- 
tion ; and those who died thousands of years ago in the 
faith of the Christian, are no happier than those who are 
now upon earth, but are still in their graves. How dif- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 147 

ferently it is represented in the scriptures! And which 
will you admit to be true? What unbelievers tell you, or 
what the Lord Jesus himself has told you ? He says that 
the poor man died and was carried by angels into Abra- 
ham's bosom : — he does not say that he will be — and 
that the rich man was in Hades, in torment ; — not that he 
will be in torment — and that he begged for a drop of wa- 
ter to cool his parched tongue. This is no fiction, no pa- 
rable, my friends, but real agony which he endured, and 
such as all those will endure who neglect so great a sal- 
vation. But even this small comfort to his agonised soul 
he was told it was impossible for him to have, for there 
was a great gulf betwixt them which could not be passed. 

Now, my friends have you heard any thing from my 
opponent to-day which throws any difficulty in the way of 
its being an historical fact, which was narrated for our 
benefit ? If you have, I am not aware of it : — but to pro- 
ceed : 

I mentioned that there were three passages in the Old 
Testament where the term CD^iJN rendered everlasting, is 
used in connexion with the eternity of God, the duration 
of Christ's kingdom, and the happiness of the saints; I 
want to take notice, therefore, where the misery of the sin- 
ner is spoken of as being of as absolute a duration as the 
happiness of the saint. It is said concerning the happi- 
ness of the saint, that they shall enjoy happiness world 
without end. " Now show me," says my opponent, " a 
passage where the term is applied to the punishment of 
the sinner and you have the argument." I have produced 
several passages to the same effect, the same as I have 
been endeavouring to explain to you, and which cannot be 
made to show any thing else, unless they be perverted to 
a wrong purpose ; but to put this beyond the reach of con- 
troversy, I obtained a copy of a Hebrew bible, and have been 
endeavouring to prove to you that the passage which I 
read in Daniel, which speaks of the eternal duration of the 
happiness of the saints, also proves the eternal duration 
of the misery of the sinner in hell ; and that if there is ever 
an end to the misery of the one there will be to the happi- 
ness of the other ; for they were to last an equal time : 
thus, [Dan. xii. 2,] "And many of them that sleep in the 
dust of the earth shall awake, some to (oulam) everlasting 
life, and some to shame and (oulam) everlasting con- 
tempt." Now, here the same duration of time is spoken 
of, for the happiness of the one as of the misery of the 



148 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

other. If, therefore, my opponent he correct, there can 
be no happiness after death, because there will be no mis- 
cry ; for both, according to Daniel, will be of equal dura- 
tion. We have shown you many passages which prove 
this term to imply eternity as applied to God and to his 
attributes. One of the passages, also, which I showed 
you, speaking of the saints, says, [Isa. xlv. 17,] " They 
shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, 
and they shall not be ashamed nor confounded world with- 
out end," and that the same term is applied when speak- 
ing of the punishment of the wicked. I told you also, that 
whenever the resurrection is spoken of, that the happi- 
ness mentioned in connexion with it is only promised to 
believers, to those who are said to have the resurrection 
and the life within them in this life, and not to those who 
live and die in their trespasses and sins; but to those only 
who have a hope here and hereafter ; — we thank the Lord 
that he has given it to us ! for without this hope we should, 
as the apostle Paul says, [1 Cor. xv. 19,] " of all men be 
the most miserable." He does not say that those who are 
destitute of this hope are happy here ; nor does he say that 
they are happy hereafter ; nor does he speak as if he 
thought the sleep was to be as lasting as my opponent 
would have you believe it, but that when he died he ex- 
pected to be immediately with the Lord Jesus ; as, also, 
Stephen when he was stoned; and calling upon God, he 
said, " Lord Jesus receive my spirit." Did Stephen, 
think you, expect that his spirit was going to remain in 
the grave till the resurrection ? If so, why did he, looking 
up to heaven, call upon the Lord Jesus to receive it? No, 
my friends, it is evident that the change takes place at 
death, either to a state of endless happiness or misery ! I 
told you also that they are spoken of as having their 
names written in the book of life, as in Philippians iv. 3, 
and that some are written in the book of life and some arc 
not written, as in Rev. xx. 15 — 15, it says, " And I saw 
the dead (not in this life) small and great stand before 
God ; and the books were opened, and another book was 
opened which is the book of life, and the dead were judged 
out of those things which were written in the books ac- 
cording to their works. And the sea gave up the dead 
which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead 
which were in them, and they were judged every man ac- 
cording to their works. And death and hell were cast un- 
to the lake of fire. This is the second death. And who- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 149 

soever was not found written in the book of life was cast 
into the lake of fire." 

By death, as it is here used, we are to understand the 
Grave, and by Hades, what my opponent wishes, the place 
of departed spirits. It is said that the dead are to stand 
before God, and then to be judged according to their 
works ; this is to be when death and Hades, hell, give up 
their dead, and these dead are they who will be judged 
and rewarded, or punished, according to their works. — 
Death and hades, hell, are figurative expressions, used 
here, not to represent places where bodies and souls are, 
till this judgment, but to represent the bodies and souls 
which were in these places, and who will then be united 
when the books are opened, and when some are to be cast 
into the lake of fire : but you will observe it is not all the 
bodies that were in the grave, but only those will be cast 
into this lake of fire, that are not found written in the book 
of life, and also that of all the souls that were in hades, 
only those will be cast into this lake that were not found 
written in the book ; and those whose names are written 
in the book, will rise to dwell with the Lord for ever. — 
But this passage clearly shows that all will not rise to 
this glory, but only those whose works have been good, 
and who, when judged, will be rewarded accordingly. I 
think, I have now clearly shown you, that the happy state 
to which some go, is, in the scriptures, plainly spoken of, 
as being for believers only ; while those who do not be- 
lieve are cast into a place of torment, as eternal as the 
happiness of the saints. 

Again, in John v. 28, 29, " Marvel not at this : for 
the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves 
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have 
done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that 
have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. " This 
is a plain commentary upon the words in Daniel xii. 2, 
where nearly the same words are used, and the same doc- 
trine is contained in all those doctrinal parallels, in the 
Old and New Testaments. 

We have now shown you that it is not all, as my oppo- 
nent would have you believe, that will enjoy this happi- 
ness in another life, but only those who die in Christ, as 
in Rev. xiv. IS — that it is only those who are written in 
the book of life, Rev. xx. 12 — and that it is only those 
that are believers, and are drawn to Christ by the Spirit 
of God : John vi. 44 — and that takes place in this life | 



150 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

not when they are in the grave : and that it is only those, 
who have a hope in Christ, that are termed believers in 
liim, and such only will be saved ; and, on the other hand, 
that all those who do not die in the Lord, who are not 
•written in the book of life, who are not drawn to Christ, 
and who do not hope and believe in him, will be cast into 
the lake of fire, there to be tormented forever. And what- 
ever my opponent may tell you about the doubtfulness of 
certain passages and epistles, and call a plain historical 
fact, a parable, he must admit that there is no ambiguity 
in that passage of Daniel at all. It, in truth, amounts to 
an absolute certainty. 

I have already shown, from the exigency of the places, 
that they can have no reference to time, but to a state af- 
ter time, in eternity; when the bodies and souls shall be 
united, and the final sentence passed upon all, who have 
lived, and die strangers to that precious grace which alone 
is able to save. 

I would ask those who are so very learned, whether we 
have any thing in the Hebrew writings, to prove that the 
time when, [as recorded in 2 Peter iii. 10,] "This earth 
and all the works that are therein shall be burnt up ;" — 
that it signifies only literally, a day, or a dispensation ; 
or, if we have any evidence of the duration of the earth, 
when the earth no longer endures ? and, if there be no 
evidence that any of these meanings can be applied to the 
time, I ask, should we attach any other meaning to it than 
infinity ? 

The passages already quoted, necessarily prove, that 
the word is of unlimited signification ; and, take notice 
also, my friends, that the same word which is used to ex- 
press the duration of the happiness of the saints, is also 
used to express the punishment of the wicked. The evi- 
dence which we have of the happiness of the saints being 
eternal, is, because the term used to imply the duration, 
is applied to this spiritual life ; which cannot be applied 
to temporal life, because you know that all die ; but the 
Universal ists say it does not mean spiritual life, or a new 
life after death. No, it does not suit them, they know, 
were they to admit that, they must admit the truth of our 
doctrine ; for the word which expresses the duration of 
the saint's happiness, expresses the duration of the sin- 
ners' misery. But there is another passage which proves 
this to a demonstration; Heb. xii. 26, 27, "Whose voice 
then shaok the earth : but now he hath promised, saying, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 151 

Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 
And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of 
those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, 
that those things which cannot be shaken may remain ;" 
which shows that the alteration or changes there spoken of 
cannot be in time but in eternity ; and then it will be fixed 
on an immutable base, which can never more be shaken. 

I will take this opportunity to remark, that the debate 
may close this evening : I have been sick for some time, 
and it is possible I may not live to see another day, though 
I much wish to come again to-morrow : it appeared to me 
strange, however, that my opponent should have intimated 
to you, as he did to-day, that the debate would close this 
evening, when I expressed no wish to that effects my de- 
sire is to oppose their doctrine, so long as my health and 
strength, and the circumstances permit ; for I conceive it 
to be a doctrine that is pregnant with dangers to you and 
to your souls, and I would wish to have another oppor- 
tunity of treating on this all important and serious sub- 
ject, and of showing you some more passages where the 
term cumm aionion, is connected with the punishment of the 
sinner, but will conclude this evening by recommending, 
to the serious consideration of all of you, that unless a 
man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God» 



152 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



THIRD DAY 



THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 15, 



91 o'clock, 

Mr. M'Calla. — Since it lias pleased God to preserve my 
life, and to continue unto me a sufficient portion of health 
and strength, to enable me to come up before you this day, in 
answer to my most earnest prayers, and those of his peo- 
ple, in order that I may have an opportunity of proving 
unto you those truths contained in his word, and of speak- 
ing for his glory, (for there is no temptation to induce me to 
preach these truths, to preach the eternal damnation of 
sinners, were it not a truth contained in his precious 
word,) I feel very thankful : for I am fully aware that the 
prejudices of mankind are decidedly opposed to it — all na- 
ture is against it — then what inducement could I have to 
advocate this doctrine, but a solemn conviction of its truth. 
I have already produced several arguments in support of 
it, which you have heard, such as Inference, Implication, 
Contrast, Negation, Positive Declarations ; and, lastly, 
by an explanation of the terms used in connexion with the 
punishment of the wicked, and pointing out its continu- 
ance. 

In order to establish the last argument, I shall now pro- 
ceed to show, according to the meaning of the lerm which 
is used, that the miseries which the wicked will endure, 
will be endless ; and this will be by proving that the terms 
rendered for ever and ever, mean the same as eternal; and 
this I have already proved to be of interminable signifi- 
cation, by its being applied to express the eternity of God, 
of Christ's kingdom, and of the duration of the happiness 
of hissaints. This, as well as the expression world without 
end, when used in connexion with any one of the three, 
has already been acknowledged by my opponent ; and, 
further, he observed that if I could find but one passage 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 153 

in the sacred volume, where these expressions were used, 
in connexion with the duration of the punishment of the 
wicked, he would admit it as conclusive, and the discus- 
sion would be at an end. 

I was under the impression that the term used in the 
Greek, conveyed the same idea of duration as the corres,- 
ponding term in the Hebrew, I therefore marked the word, 
and on examination found it correct. I have brought a 
Hebrew bible with me, and find the term is the same as 
Parkhurst has rendered, " to the eternity of ages." 

On my way here this morning, I called at a bookseller's 
and procured a copy of a book which was used by the se- 
venty, and which I found on examination corresponded 
with Mr. Kneel and's translation in idea, though not pre- 
cisely in words ; it is " to the eternities of futurity," which 
certainly is to be understood as absolutely eternal : and 
according to Mr. Kneeland's translation, it is " to the ages 
of ages ;" and in the preface to his translation, Mr. K. 
insists that neither in the singular nor duplicate, it ever 
means an absolute eternity.* 

Those who translated the Septuagint, it may be presum- 
ed were as learned, and understood what they were doing 
as well as the publisher of a little book, called a New 
Greek and English Testament, and they have rendered 
the singular number by a word corresponding to the En- 
glish word eternal. 

We Iiave now come to an expression which appears to 
me to be the point which my opponent has been so long 
calling for, and the point on which this discussion must fi- 
nally turn. For my opponent says, if I can find the ex- 
pression that is used in Isa. xlv. 17, (" But Israel shall 
be saved with an everlasting salvation : ye shall not be 
ashamed nor confounded world without end 9 ") applied to 
the punishment of the wicked, as it there means an eternal 
salvation, of course, if used in connexion with punish- 
ment, it must necessarily mean an eternal punishment, and 
he would concede the point. This is all I can require of him. 
It is all that is necessary : for the very expression used in 
the Greek in Isaiah is also used in Daniel, xii. 2, and ap» 

* He should have said " in his Lectures, pages 104, 216, 217," 
20 



154 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

plied to the punishment of the wicked.* " And many of 
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some 
to everlasting life, and some to everlasting contempt." Is 
not this all that should be required to prove my part of 
the proposition ? I wish, however, to say something with 
respect to the term *<»wov aionion. 1 told you that it occurs 
forty-two times in the New Testament. I produced 
three texts where it is used to express eternity past, eter- 
nity to come, and in an unlimited sense to denote an un- 
limited period : and that it occurs in this sense fifteen times 
in the septuagint version of the Old Testament. These 
passages, L told you, were sufficient to prove the punish- 
ment is absolutely eternal: for the very expressions, when 
applied to punishment, cannot be correctly construed to 
any other meaning ; although it has various meanings, as 
it is sometimes translated forever, forever and ever, ever- 
lasting, &c. But to ascertain the true meaning of the 
term, we must not depend upon human authority, we must 
not depend upon the mere opinion of learned and unlearn- 
ed who may please to give us a new translation ; but 
we must compare scripture with scripture : we must see 
how they correspond, see in what sense they are used in 
one place and how they are used in another, and if there 
be any difficulty, see in which sense they are most fre- 
quently used, and this must decide its true meaning. In 
doing this, a faithful examination should be made, and all 
those passages selected where the term is, as it is trans- 
lated, to the age ; and of all those where it is, as It may 
be rendered to the age of the age, &c. and this examina- 
tion had better be made before we proceed any further ; 
we then should find that the term has three different mean- 
ings as it is used in the Old Testament; the first signify- 
ing eternity past, the next, eternity future, and the third, 
a loose, vague, or indefinite meaning, which last is appli- 
ed to the riches, honours, cares and concerns of this life. 
These are the only modes in which this term is used ; and 
we find that it is used in this sense in the New Testament 
thirty-one times, all of which, both chapter and verse, I 
have given you. 

And, first, it shows that the thing there spoken of had 
a beginning, and of course may have an ending, as in 



• This is not correct : the words in the Septuagint in Isa. xlv. 17, are 

toes tow atwos ttt> in seternum amplius : but in Dan xii. 2, it is aimtov ster- 
num. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 155 

Luke i. 7^, ?* As he spoke by the mouth of his holy pro- 
phets, which fiave been since the world began :" a.^ &unos 
from the beginning of aion, the world: beginning here 
had a reference to the latter, or the end : so in Acts iii. 
21, " Which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy 
prophets since the world began." This passage also evi- 
dently implies that there will be an end. Again, Matt, 
xiii. 39, " The harvest is the end of the world," or as it is 
here correctly enough in the translation of my opponent, 
♦< the end of the age." 

Now I have shown you that the term is used to imply 
an absolute eternity, or endless duration, when applied to 
the existence of God, to his attributes, and to the existence 
of Christ's kingdom ; and have admitted that when appli- 
ed to things that must pass away, that it is limited in its 
signification ; and this is all my opponent has a right to 
ask. 

But there is one more passage in Heb. ix. 26, " For 
then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the 
world : but now once in the end (w amm of the ages) of 
the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacri- 
fice of himself." I have found no other passage in the 
scriptures where the doctrine is maintained of the ages 
having beginning or end ;* I hope to prove, therefore, 
(God willing,) that in the other passages in the scriptures 
where it is used, that the word signifies duration before 
the beginning of the creation, which is eternity past, or 
duration after the existence of the creation, which is eter- 
nity to come. But when the word is applied to the exis- 
tence of God it implies both. Thus, in 1 Tim. i. 17, 
Now unto the "King eternal," that is eternity past; 
" King immortal," that is eternity to come ; and in Eph. 
iii. 11, " According to his eternal purpose;" and in Acts 
ii. 23, "Him, being delivered by the counsel and fore- 
knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands 
have crucified and slain." All know that this must con- 
vey the idea of eternity in its fullest sense. All under- 
derstand by it eternity in its fullest extent. Who does not 
know that the foreknowledge of God existed before the cre- 
ation of the world and will exist after it is annihilated ? 
Then, as Christ our Lord had foreknowledge, so perhaps 
the translators intended to represent his knowledge of eter« 

* See, out of several others which might be named, Eph. i. 21 ; ii. 7, 



156 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

nity to come, by the expression [in Eph. iii. 21,] where 
they have used the term ages. — My opponent is more strict 
than the writers whom he quotes, for both Junius and Tre- 
mellius, one of the Latin writers, has translated the term 
there used, " to the everlasting ages," which corresponds 
with that passage in Daniel, xir 3, " And they that be 
wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and 
they tlijtt turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever 
and ever." And in Eph. iii. 21, it is "unto him be glory 
in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world 
without end." 

My opponent has, very unfortunately for himself, made 
the offer that the discussion should turn on this point ; for 
we have proved that the term applied to the punishment 
of the wicked agrees with the term applied to the exis- 
tence of God and his attributes, and also to the eternity 
of Christ's kingdom. This is the second passage, there- 
fore, where he has been confuted according to his own con- 
fession. 

Again, in Peter, iv. 11, " If any man speak let him 
speak as the oracles of God ; if any man minister, let him 
do it as of the ability which God giveth : that God in all 
things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be 
praise and dominion for ever and ever." Did the apostle 
here mean that God was to be glorified to all eternity, or 
did he not? No one will dare to say that he did not. — 
Again, with regard to the word aionian, which has been 
so much and so grossly abused by those who profess to be 
more learned than their neighbours. In Mark x. SO, in 
the common version it reads, " And in the world to come 
eternal life :" my learned opponent lias it in his new trans- 
lation, " And in the age to come aionian life:" and this, 
he would have you understand, is not to be in eternity, hut 
in this life. But who does not know that it means life af- 
ter death ? The evangelist could not possibly mean that 
believers are to have houses and lands in the world to 
come : but this idea is just as reasonable to suppose, as to 
suppose that the world to come is the world which is come; 
or that we can possess a precarious and limited life and at 
the same time that we should possess eternal Jife. In Luke 
xviii. 33, you will find the same expression as it is in the 
new translation, " Who shall not receive much more in 
this present time ; and in the coming age aionian life." 
But as it is in the plain English translation, " Who shall 
not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the 
world to come life everlasting." 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 157 

One would suppose that my opponent fairly wanted to 
turn the subject into ridicule, and in fact I hardly know 
how to give it another name unless I term it ignorance ; 
for although the term aionian is used, you must all be 
aware that there is an essential difference between them, 
as the difference between the words temporal and eternal 
import. Thus, in Matt. xii. 32, in his translation he has 
rendered it, "But whosoever speaketh against the holy 
spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this nor in 
the coming age :" but in our common version it reads, 
" Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall 
not be forgiven him, neither in this world neither in the 
world to come." By which we must understand, accord- 
ing to my opponent, that hardened, perverse sinners, blas- 
phemers and unbelievers, will never be forgiven neither 
in time, neither in time! Now to what does that amount? 
Nothing. It is perfectly ridiculous ! Whereas the true 
meaning is, neither in this world while it endures, neither 
in the world to come after this, and which is to be an eter- 
nal one. 

In all the passages where this word occurs it is render- 
ed everlasting or eternal;* and all the translators which 
I have seen, have rendered it everlasting : but I never in 
my life met any one who has rendered it so absurdly as 
my opponent, though others may have varied more or less 
from the original meaning, yet they are all more consis- 
tent than he is. 

Again, in Ephesians, i. 30, in this said new translation 
of his, it reads, " According to the working of his mighty 
strength, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him 
from the dead, and seated him at his own right hand in 
the heavenly places ; far above all principality, and pow- 
er, and might, and dominion, and every name which is 
named, not only in this age, but also that which is com- 
ing;" but in the common version it reads, " Not only in 
this world, but also in that which is to come." Nowhere 
you will observe a manifest distinction between these two 
translations ; that of my opponent makes it appear that all 
is to happen in this world, but at a different period of 
time, but in the common version it speaks as distinctly as 
possible of this present world and of that which is to come 
after this shall no longer exist. So, in 2 Cor. iv. 4, the 

* The common version is supposed to be here alluded to, though this 
is not perfectly correct. 



158 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

rulers of each world are spoken of as being very distinct 
in their natures and characters, " In those unbelievers, 
whose minds the god of this age hath blinded ; so that the 
lustre of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image 
of God, doth not enlighten them." The god of this world 
is not that being of whom it is said Christ is the image, 
but my opponent, although he has not expressly said so, 
would have you understand that it is all one, that there is 
no distinction* Again, in Matt. xiii. 9.9., you will find this 
or tne natural world and the things of it, spoken of as be- 
ing very distinct from the things of the next, or spiritual 
world ; " He also that receiveth seed among the thorns 
is he that heareth the word ; and the care of this world, 
and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he 
becometh unfruitful. " Our Lord, by this parable wished 
them to understand that though they were in this world, 
it was not their resting place, that they did not then be- 
long to it, and therefore he wished them not to regard the 
things of this world, but seek for those things which con- 
cerned the world to come. Again, the distinction is not only 
kept up between the two worlds, the rulers of each, and 
the things of them, but the inhabitants of each world are 
spoken of as being very distinct in their character and 
destination. In Luke, xvi. 8, '« For the children of this 
world are in their generation wiser than the children of 
light." Is there not a marked distinction here? The 
children of this world are represented as being wiser, that 
is, more subtle than the children of light; and we know- 
that this is true : we see them prosper in this their world, 
while the children of the other world drag out a life of suf- 
fering and misery. 

But, for our comfort, we know r that our reward is sure, 
through the precious blood of Christ, which hath been 
shed for those who believe. Again, Luke xx. 34, 35, 
'* The children of this woiicl marry, and are given in mar- 
riage : but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain 
that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither 
marry, nor are given in marriage." iNow, if we explain 
this passage according to the doctrine of my learned op- 
ponent, we must say but those of this world, who shall be 
accounted worthy to obtain this world, &c. But how 
will this agree with the connexion ? with the resurrection 
from the dead, to a state where they can die no more ? — 
If my opponent can reconcile these things to his satisfac- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 159 

tron, I must candidly confess my inability to reconcile 
them to mine. 

But, again — with regard to the term axon, which some- 
times means eternity, and sometimes it is used figuratively 
to express an unlimited duration of time : as in Paul's 
epistle to Titus, i. 2, " In hope of eternal life, which God, 
that cannot lie, promised before the world began :" and 
in Gal. i. 4, " Who gave himself for our sins, that he 
might deliver us from this present evil world, according to 
the will of God and our Father, to whom be glory for ever 
and ever." Here the term is used to distinguish between 
eternity past, the present time, and eternity future ; but 
my opponent and his followers, would have you believe, 
that aw axon never means any thing else but an age, a 
dispensation, or something that belongs to time. He al- 
ways renders it an age, its plural aumt aiones, ages, and 
when he explains it, or gives you his reason for doing so, 
he tells you that " it is a shorter word, and equally plea- 
sant to the car;" (to his, I suppose he meant,) " as the 
word everlasting, and no one," he says, " can object that 
this should be associated with the language of scripture, a 
language, in many respects, peculiar to itself; and whose 
peculiarities, (particularly of the New Testament,) are 
mostly limited to religious subjects." 

The term occurs in the original forty-two times, in 
twenty-one of which it is rendered everlasting. When 
speaking on this subject before, I made a little mistake — 
but it is of no importance as to the point in debate, its be- 
ing rendered once more, or less, either one way or the other; 
in seventeen places it is applied to duration of being, the pe- 
riod of a man's life, &c. and in three places to the power and 
dominion of God. And here, according to my opponent, 
it admits of being rendered to an absolute eternity. In 
Matt. vi. 13, when our Lord taught his disciples to pray* 
he adds, ** For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and 
the glory, for ever and ever." 

Now, unless we believe that the time is coming, when 
the kingdom shall be taken away from God, we must ad- 
mit that he will possess this power and glory to an abso- 
lute eternity. But my opponent will not admit that the 
doxology is inspired, and has therefore rejected it from hi* 
translation altogether : — and upon what authority ? He 
has told us in a note to his new translation, that it is upon 
the authority of Griesbach, who rejected it and such other 
parts ©f sacred writ, (which do not suit them) as spurious. 



160 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

This said Griesbach, was a Unitarian, and made 
great work in Europe, and so my opponent thinks his au- 
thority sufficient for us ; as if we should be so credulous 
as to reject part of the word of God because his name is 
given as authority for it. 

I am fully aware that the name of a man goes a great 
way in every thing; but, after all their turning and twist- 
ing, their trying and wishing to curtail the truth, they 
never can perform it — they will have all their labours and 
accomplish nothing. It is true, they may influence a few 
poor weak minded people to believe what they tell them, 
but that is all the harm they can do. 

A certain writer showed the fallacy of all their argu- 
ments, and far more powerful ones than any my opponent 
has yet produced. I allude to the letters addressed by 
Professor Stuart to Dr. Channing; but I am willing to 
admit, that these men, such as Griesbach, Dr. Lardner, 
and others, have been useful in the hand of God, as hew- 
ers of wood and drawers of water for the sanctuary of the 
Lord, and for his people; and, taking their translations 
as they have given them to us, it does not affect my doc- 
trine at all. Truth must stand, and the gates of Hell 
shall not prevail against it, it is perfectly safe in the hands 
of him that first gave it. 

10 o'clock. 

Mr, Kneeland. — It has been suggested to me this morn- 
ing, as a report in circulation, and very generally re- 
ceived, that an impression was made upon the audience 
assembled here yesterday afternoon, very much in favour 
of my opponent, and that his cause was rising. If it be 
so, I assure you, I am truly glad of it ; there is no person 
present to whom such a report affords more satisfaction 
than to your speaker ; for, to it, in a great measure, may 
be attributed your being drawn together this morning in 
increased numbers. I am also glad that his cause is rising 
in your minds, because the more powerful impression he 
now makes on you, respecting the truth of his doctrine, 
the greater will be his defeat if he should fail to prove it. 
He has stated to you, and very truly, that the controversy 
is now drawing to a point, on which, as on a pivot, it 
must finally turn. 

And, as he appears to rest the issue of it on that pas- 
sage relating to Israel, in Isaiah xlv. 17, where wc have 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 161 

the words Ty 'nSiy iy (pd oulami od, as I pronounce them, 
for I shall not attempt to give the pronunciation of my op- 
ponent), which are rendered world without end, in the 
common version, I think this issue will not long remain 
douhtful. 

And, here I again repeat, what I before stated, that if 
the same phrase that is used in the Hebrew, if the same 
original phrase, I say, which is here found in connexion 
with the salvation of Israel, can be found in connexion 
with the punishment of the wicked, if he can find a single 
passage where it says the wicked shall suffer (od oulami 
od) world without end, or that they shall be punished 
(od oulami od) world without end, or where it is used in 
any way, (as I wish to show him all the favor I can) in 
connexion with their punishment, I have done, and he has 
the argument. This, then, is all he has to show, it is all 
I require of him, and I will give him the argument — but 
this he must first do. 

My opponent told you that he had brought a Hebrew 
Bible with him, I am glad of it, for he may need one, 
though it will not help him out in this case; yet he has 
endeavoured to prove, from his said Hebrew Bible, the 
truth of the absolutely eternal punishment of the wicked. 
Has he done it ? No ! — nor will he ever be able to do it 
by any thing recorded in the Hebrew scriptures. But 
this is the point now at issue, and this will be decided, 
according to his intimation and my assertion, by the pas- 
sage now before us. By this my opponent stands or falls 
— or, I am much mistaken. 

We shall, therefore, not trespass upon your goodness 
and patience much longer, for if the words in the passage 
before named, in Isaiah xlv. 17, (od oulami od,) rendered 
world without end, be ever connected with punishment, 
my opponent has the argument ; and, if not, he must give 
it to me. 

I am extremely happy, on this present and very im- 
portant occasion, as on a former, to observe one in this 
numerous assembly, to whom I am willing to appeal for 
the decision of this point, if my opponent is equally wil- 
ling ; and, lest it should be supposed I prefer submitting 
to him, in preference to another, I can assure you I know 
nothing of his opinions with regard to the present discus- 
sion ; I only know him as a Hebrew professor, and as 
a gentleman well skilled in that language, 

21 



162 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION". 

The passage referred to reads thus, " But Israel shall 
be saved in the Lord with an (oulamim) everlasting sal- 
vation." In this former part of the verse there is no dis- 
pute between me and my opponent, we are perfectly agreed 
with respect to their everlasting salvation ; it is in the 
latter clause only that there is any collision between us. 
** Ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded (od oulami od) 
world without end." The first part of this clause might be 
differently rendered; but this is not the subject in dispute ; 
the only words that there is any dispute about are the three 
following, od oulami od — world without end. 

I read witbout points, and as I do not profess to be 
such o. very learned man, as my opponent wants satirically 
to make it appear ; I only promise you to read it as well 
as I can — od oulami od — oulami comes from olam, which 
answers to the Greek */«v, rendered for ever in the com- 
mon version of the Old and New Testaments. My oppo- 
nent has supposed that the same original phrase is used 
throughout the Bible, wherever the rendering is the same 
in the common version ; but in this supposition he is very 
much mistaken ; the phrase is essentially different. All 
three of the words here have reference to time, duration, 
or continuance of time : hence, od oulami od, must be a 
stronger expression than simply olam, oulam, or od oulam, 
and might be rendered, though not perfectly literal, time 
to the age and further. And in justification of this render- 
ing, I will turn to a passage in the Septuagint, where, in 
relation to the same subject, it says, Dan. xii. 3, " shall 
shine as the stars »/? tou? aw*?, km «■« eis tous aionas, kai eti, 
to the ages, and longer :" and this passage in dispute, in 
the Septuagint, reads, " Ye shall not be ashamed, nor 
confounded im *ov eumoe «t/ heos tou aionos eti 9 in seternum 
amplius; which, (if <*.iwc$ here signifies eternity,) must mean 
to more than (or longer than) eternity !" Of course, it is 
longer than any of the terms which are connected witu 
punishment. 

Now, if my opponent will contend that the Hebrew dS;% 
or the Greek turn, means of itself strictly eternity, then 
this passage, taken in connexion, must mean to eternity 
and longer / That this is the true rendering of this phrase, 
admitting «uw to mean strictly eternity, I appeal to all and 
every learned person present ; and let such a person, if I 
be incorrect, now contradict me ; and, if I am correct, I 
appeal to this assembly, whether the phrase, which will 
admit of being rendered, *• to eternity and longer," does 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 16c* 

not prove that by the word eternity , we are to understand 
an eternity or period of time, which will have an end ? 

I now, again, repeat, that if my opponent can show, 
that the expression od oulami od, which I am willing to 
admit may signify an absolute eternity, is any where in 
the sacred volume, used in connexion with punishment, 
misery, or death, then he has the argument ; and, if not, 
it is evident, that what T said yesterday, still stands sure, 
and we may fairly conclude that he cannot do it. 

If he can meet me on this ground, or upon the ground 
which I offered him, I am perfectly willing to meet him, 
and if he will submit to my appeal to the Professor I am 
equally willing, on my part, to abide by his decision, as 
I am not at all afraid of his answer. 

[Here Mr. K. made a pause, it is presumed, to give his 
opponent an opportunity of assenting to the appeal, and of 
course of determining the point — as no notice, however, 
was taken of it by Mr. M'C. — Mr. K. resumed :] 

Why will not my opponent submit to this appeal ? How 
Will you, my hearers, account for it ? You see that I am 
perfectly willing — then why should not he be equally so ? 
I have the satisfaction of knowing, however, that if I be 
correct, I shall stand firm in the opinion of the judicious part 
of this assembly, who are not carried away by the mere 
sound of words, nor by sallies of wit, but who will judge 
by the solid arguments offered on each side, and by them 
only : as to the others, I would as soon that my opponent 
had them with him in opinion, as that they should be with 
me, for they cannot he said, strictly speaking, to have an 
opinion of their own, detached from the prejudices of their 
education. 

And we will now proceed to notice the two Greek words, 
«jw hades and ysm* gehenna, both of which are in the com- 
mon version of the New Testament (with one single ex- 
ception in regard to hades) uniformly rendered hell ; but 
which, in the Greek Testament, are entirely distinct in 
every particular ; and, my opponent not being aware of 
this, has betrayed the grossest ignorance of the original, 
in words and meaning, by substituting the one for the 
other. Did not my opponent know the meaning of the 
words ? Can it be possible, that he supposed that when 
the rich man was buried, that it was in Gehenna, when 
Hades is invariably represented as the place of the dead, 
either good or bad, and not Gehenna. It is in a great 
measure owing to the translators, I presume, that my op- 



164 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

ponent has been led into this error; for had they not ren- 
dered these two words, which are so entirely different, in 
every respect, invariably the same, (except Cor. xv. 55.) 
it is probable he might not have made this mistake. If, 
however, he had paid sufficient attention to the parable as 
it stands in the common version of the Testament, he 
would even then have avoided it. I feel disposed, however, 
to make some apology for him* For, although he has 
made so many mistakes, and some very great ones, he 
does not seem disposed to apologize for himself; — and 
he has made a mistake, since then, much worse than that 
of which I am now speaking ; for which (although one is 
due from him) he does not attempt to apologize. 

Let him now tell you, as he before has done, that I wish 
to pervert the scriptures to suit my own purpose, if he 
pleases. I only wish you to understand how they are in 
the original, with the literal meaning attached to each 
word, that you may draw your own conclusions. If this 
be perverting the scriptures, be it so ! The word *<f»? in the 
Greek is the same in signification as the term b)m sheol in 
the Hebrew, and, is, in fact, its corresponding word. It 
signifies, as I told you, the place of the dead, or the sup- 
posed place of departed spirits, whether good or bad ; — 
and, this is all that either term does mean. In confirma- 
tion of which, I appeal to the opinion of the most learned 
writers on my opponent's side of the question, namely, to 
Griesbach, [pronounced by Mr. K. Greesback,] or Gri%e- 
baw if he pleases, whom, with deference to my opponent, 
I contend was not a Unitarian, but a Trinitarian, as may 
be very easily proved. 

I appeal also to the opinion of the learned Dr. Camp- 
bell, who, in his preliminary dissertations, page 274, says 
4i The term &&$ hades, in my judgment, ought never 
to be rendered Hell, at least in the sense wherein that word 
is now universally understood by Christians. In the Old 
Testament the corresponding word is ^|tft# sheol, winch 
signifies the state of the dead in general, without regard 
to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness 
or misery. In translating that word, the Seventy have al- 
most invariably used hades. The state is always repre- 
sented under those figures which suggest something dread- 
ful, dark, and silent, about which the most prying eye, 
and listening ear, can acquire no information. The term 
hades, is well adapted to express this idea. To this the 
word liellf in its primitive signification, perfectly corres- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 165 

ponded. For, at first, it denoted only what was secret, 
or concealed," 

Now, this Dr. Campbell was not a Universalist, neither 
was he a Unitarian, for had he been eiiher, he could not 
have held the respectable office which he did : but, he was 
one who held the same doctrines as my opponent. 

And further, my hearers, I appeal to a man whom you 
all know, and who resides in this city ; I mean the learn- 
ed Dr. Wilson. My opponent will not presume to say of 
him that he is either Unitarian or Universalist, for you all 
know to the contrary ; he is, however, as much a Univer- 
salist as Griesbach was a Unitarian, and yet Dr. Wilson 
has said, in his note on Job, x. 21, "This word (nin 1 ?*) 
signifies the state of the dead in general, whether good or 
evil, and so do SttW the grave, tq the pit, 12 ^ix the stones 
of the pit, non silence, and the Greek word &&? the invisi- 
ble world. This was supposed to be under the surface of 
the earth, where Samuel and Saul, Abraham and the epi- 
cure, were supposed to be," — [Introd. Heb. Gram. p. 197. 

You have now, my hearers, the authority of Dr. Wilson, as 
well as of those I before quoted, that Abraham and the rich 
man were both in hades, which my opponent thinks must 
mean hell. I toid him that it was a parable, and if it 
meant that Abraham was in heaven, the rich man was 
there also, for they were both in hades ; but he says it is 
not a parable but a historical fact, although he admits that 
Abraham's bosom figuratively means Christ I and that when 
I stated it was a parable, I only imagined so, because I 
wished it might be proved to be no more. I have given 
you as my authority the opinions of two learned Doctors 
of his own sentiments, creed, and church ; if, therefore, 
my opponent is disposed to conlradict them, the continua- 
tion of the discussion on this word must be between him 
and Dr. Wilson, and not between him and me. 

The third, and last, and only word on which the contro- 
versy must now turn, is the term ywt*. Gehenna. This, he 
endeavoured to show, did not mean the valley of Hinnom, 
as it is used in Mark, ix. and the corresponding passage 
in Isa. lxvi. 24, though he admitted that the worm there 
spoken of might die, but that it was Jeremiah that refer- 
red to the valley of Hinnom, and that t3ie passages were 
entirely different. I will read it as it is in the common 
version, by which you will perceive that it is as strongly 
expressed in Isaiah, that the worm shall not die, and the 
fire shall not be quenched, as it is in Mark. [Isa. lxvi* 



166 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

24,] "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases 
of the men that have transgressed against me : for their 
worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and 
they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." I have no ob- 
jection, to admit his correction, if he thinks it will help 
him ; but it is in my favour. The passage, however, 
will admit of a different rendering, for the correctness of 
which I again take the liberty of appealing to the learned 
professor. It may be rendered thus : " And they shall 
go forth, and look upon those who are transgressing 
against me, and their worm ye shall not kill, and their fire 
ye shall not quench, and they shall be an abhorring (or a 
warning) to all people." 

My opponent has said that this worm should die, in or- 
der to prove that it is not the same worm as is spoken of 
by Mark. Now God by his holy prophet has positively 
declared it shall not. This, therefore, is no longer a sub- 
ject for our disputation ; let him settle the matter with the 
inspired prophet himself. 

I ask you, my hearers, if the passage used by the pro- 
phet, when quoted by the evangelist Mark, or even by Je- 
sus Christ himself, can have a different meaning because 
it is by them quoted ? I should suppose that the words 
which were delivered by Jesus Christ as a quotation from 
the prophet, must be the same which were used by the 
evangelist, Mark. But admitting they differ a little in 
the form of expression, I ask, can they have different 
meanings when they refer to, and signify the same thing? 
But yet, if my opponent can show from it that it refers to 
a future state of punishment, that is, to a state of punish- 
ment in another world, I will give him the argument. 

I have now met my opponent upon every ground whicli 
he has assumed, and I think I have clearly shown you that 
in every particular he is incorrect. I will not say that he 
has falsely interpreted these passages, but incorrectly, as 
I cannot but suppose that he conscientiously believed they 
were as he represented them. 

I feel much indebted to him, and return him my thanks 
for bringing my works into such public notice as he has 
done, as it will, no doubt, tend to increase the sale of them. 

I now once more call upon my opponent to submit the 
determination of this point depending on the meaning of 
these words to the decision of the Professor, and if he will 
not consent, I appeal to the Professor myself, or to any 
other competent person who may now be present, to tell 
me if I am wrong. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 167 

I will now recapitulate all my opponent's strong argu- 
ments which he has produced in support of his doctrine; 
and first, his argument by way of Inference; second, by 
Implication ; third, by Interrogation ; fourth, by Con- 
trast; fifth, what he calls his Positive testimony ; and this 
last, as he said the discussion would turn upon it, and up- 
on which he intimated he was willing to let the issue rest, 
I ought particularly to notice. Let it be observed, then, 
that the strongest term which he has been able to find in 
it can be proved to be the very term which is used to 
express the duration of a man's life, as you will find in 
Paul's epistle to Philemon, where the same term, tumm* is 
used, (verse 15,) on which my opponent depends to prove 
the doctrine of the M absolute eternal punishment of the 
wicked." 

I will now take the liberty of reading you a passage 
from my lectures, and as he has so frequently read from 
them himself, I presume he can have no objection. The 
passage to which I will now call your attention is on the 
216th page. "The word am «io?i, as a substantive, occurs 
128 times in the Greek Testament, 66 times in the singu- 
lar, and 62 in the plural number. In our common trans- 
lation it is rendered 72 times ever; twice eternal ; 36 times 
world; seven times never; three times evermore; twice 
worlds; twice ages; once course; once world without end ; 
and twice it is passed over without any word affixed as a- 
translation of it." And on the next page, " The W T ord 
aimtov aionion, as an adjective, occurs 71 times in the New 
Testament. The common translation has rendered it once 
ever 9 42 times eternal, 3 times world, and 25 times ever- 
lasting. The word *umov aionion expresses duration or con- 
tinuance ; but it is sometimes of a short, and at other 
times of a longer duration. Paul, writing to Philemon 
concerning Onesimus, says, 'Perhaps he was separated 
for a while, that thou mightest have him seonionly. 9 This 
certainly could mean only during the life of Onesimus." 
— I have read this passage to you that you may know how 
varied the meanings are which are attached to these two 
words : now mark— — hut my time is out, 

IO5 o'clock, 

Mr. M'Calla.—I have proposed a plan for my opponent 
to fill up his half hour, but he does not appear to advan- 
tage himself of my suggestion. My only reason for pro- 



168 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

posing it was, that I thought he might more profitably and 
suitably employ his leisure time than he has hitherto been 
doing, which would certainly be more consistent and more 
desirable for a man of his parts. I must say I was very 
sorry to see that a man who wishes to palm himself upon 
you as possessing so much charity and brotherly feeling, 
should betray such a want of generosity, and even of com- 
mon politeness, as to attempt to turn into ridicule the pro- 
nunciation of any individual, even although he may not be 
so celebrated for profound erudition and learning as my 
opponent. One would suppose that he would exercise more 
charity towards one who only assumes to himself the hum- 
ble talents and pretensions of a layman. 

The truth is, I pronounced the word Griesbach [Grize- 
baw] as it is pronounced by his own countrymen: and I 
had an opportunity of conversing with some Germans with 
regard to the pronunciation of this name, and the pronun- 
ciation which they gave it is the one which I have given. 
My opponent, however, ought to know better than natives 
(as he understands so many languages.) I told them at 
the time that it was pronounced differently by others ; 
but they assured me it was the true pronunciation 
of the word as pronounced in their country. The same 
may be observed of another name, I mean Michselis, in 
the pronunciation of which, and many other names, all 
English readers vary. 

But would I think of ridiculing a man for his pronun- 
ciation when he is engaged in a debate on such an impor- 
tant subject? No; it would be the last thing I should re- 
sort to, and would conceive that it would be an argument 
of a sinking cause. But I look upon it as so truly pitiable 
that really it deserves but little notice. 

My opponent made the same emphatical remark on my 
pronunciation of the Hebrew and Greek. I must say I 
am astonished at the assurance of the man who, in your 
presence, has professed such wonderful christian charity 
and forbearance for his opponent, and yet attempting to 
ridicule my pronunciation of languages in which the learn- 
ed would differ so much ; and for what? Because he thinks 
I do not pronounce just as he does. 'Tis true, it is in 
some measure due me for my presumption in having dared 
to differ from so learned a man. But I am not ashamed 
to acknowledge that I agree with Dr. Wilson in the pro-r 
nunciation of these words ; though, to be sure, he is but a 
mere infant in knowledge compared with my opponent ! 






THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 3 §9 

Who does not know that every one's pronunciation of the 
dead languages is entirely different? Every one has a pro- 
nunciation of his own. In the Hebrew particularly, there 
are two very great distinctions which regulate it, and there 
are also several others; thus, there are the punctuarians 
and the anti-punctuarians, and [something is here wanting] 
and among the anti-punctuarians there are upwards of a 
hundred distinctions in the pronunciation. In fact, there 
are no two men who pronounce them exactly alike. Dr. 
Wilson, and Parkhurst, and my friend the Professor, all 
differ in this respect from each other. 

Knowing the pronunciation of a dead language to he of 
so little importance, I take Parkhurst as my general stan- 
dard, because it is not convenient for me to take all, and 
yet my opponent speaks of it as though it was a very sa- 
vage pronunciation. — Parkhurst sounds the Hebrew y oin 
in some words like the " gutteral n 9 or ng" or " like the 
French on; 99 1 accordingly pronounced it in that manner. 

It reminds me of an occurrence which happened when I 
was travelling to the southward. On arriving at the city 
of New Orleans, I went into a public house, and seeing a 
bill of mortality lying upon the table, I was looking over 
it, when a French gentleman who was standing near, ob- 
serving me look a little serious, as chaplains sometimes 
will upon such occasions, he said to me, with a true French 
accent, " Sic transit gloria mundi." Now here was a La- 
tin sentence pronounced after the French manner, which 
certainly sounded strange to my ears ; but how should I 
have looked at him when I heard it ? Should I have shown 
him that I was astonished at his French accent ? No ; I 
consider it the height of rudeness to laugh at, or ridicule 
any man on account of his pronunciation, or because it 
differs from my own, when every nation has its peculiar 
manner of pronouncing the dead languages. Should I 
have told him that his pronunciation was strange and sa- 
vage because he had not learned it from me ? And yet mine 
has been called so because I did not learn pronunciation, 
of Dr. Kneeland ! Yes, my friends, these are the expres- 
sions of a man who professes so much christian forbear- 
ance ; and you will recollect that this is the man who has 
said so much against treating this important subject with 
ridicule, sarcasm and wit. 

If, however, I should be treated as I have been hitherto, 
I am determined to let you see that even my learned oppo- 
nent is not invulnerable. He finds fault with me because 

32 



170 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

I am, as he says, ignorant of the Greek. Did I ever pro- 
fess to be a proficient in it? Did I ever profess a critical- 
knowledge of it ? If I bad ever set myself forward as a 
man of such profound learning as to attempt to supercede 
all former translations, and to give you a new translation 
of the New Testament, he might then have found fault with 
me if I hail committed errors ; but I consider it no disgrace 
to be ignorant of that which I do not profess to know. I 
am very willing to confess the truth ; and I hope that he 
will be equally willing to acknowledge the errors which 
he has committed in this butchering piece of work of his 
which he has called " a new translation," &c. 

For my part, I here openly confess that I am ignorant 
of the dead languages, and even of my own language : it 
was not to show my learning that I came here; nor did I 
come to declaim, nor to show my talent for oratory, but 
merely to advocate the truths of that gospel which was 
given us by our Lord, and which has been handed down 
to us for our comfort, and to the confusion of its enemies. 

But I am not aware that my antagonist, with all his 
learned translations, has given us any specimen of his li- 
terary acquirements. True, he has found some fault with 
my pronunciation, he has said that I did not know whe- 
ther the Greek term translated Hell in our scriptures, 
should be pronounced Had'-es or Ha'-dase; but I conceive 
the difference in the pronunciation can be of no conse- 
quence, as it cannot affect the sense or meaning of the 
term ; and as it agrees with the Port Royal Grammar, \t 
did not occur to me that I was wrong. He has further 
stated that I have betrayed great ignorance of my acquain- 
tance with the language, as I did not know which term 
was used in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, 
whether it was a<f»c Hades, or yaw* Gehenna* The truth 
is, I did not say that those who were in hades would not 
enter into heaven ; nor did I say that Gehenna was the 
place where the rich man was buried. I said that there 
would be no end to the torments of the wicked, nor would 
there be any end to their abode in Gehenna* I admit that he 
might have understood me so, and that he did is very pro- 
bable, for he came up the steps, and, with more politeness 
than I expected from him, he told me that I had made a 
mistake. The truth is, I had his new book in my hand at 
the time, and I was under the impression that he had made 
the mistake and that in his translation it was Gehenna in- 
stead of hades, which error X wished to rectify. I, bow- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 17.1 

ever, thought it would be useless to correct one as I have 
heard of at least a hundred charges against it. — I will not 
refer to my moderator on this subject, because he sits here 
merely as a judge of plain matter of fact, and nothing 
else. 

My opponent has told you that Griesbach was no more 
a Unitarian than Dr. Wilson is a Universalist. Let him 
have it so now, but at the same time, I know to the con- 
trary. 

He has charged me with two cases of falsehood, and he 
thinks he has me close enough. — He has publicly acknow- 
ledged that he believes all that is contained in the scrip- 
tures. Now, I can prove that he disbelieves a great por 
tion of it. He has also told you that on every ground I 
was incorrect, and yet he will not charge me with false- 
hood. No, he has too much charity and brotherly love ! 
He only wishes you to understand so. 

I will explain this mistake: — he says, "Dr. Lardner 
has well observed that those epistles, the genuineness of 
which were disputed in the primitive ages, ought not to 
be alleged as affording alone sufficient proof of any doc- 
trine." I did not observe the two or three little mutila- 
ted words at the bottom of the page. I, however, disre- 
gard his charge of falsehood altogether, for I did not say 
they were his words, I only said lie approves of them, and 
by his approbation, made them his : did he, think you, 
when he made that quotation, and thereby made them his 
own, wish you, or those who read his book, to believe those 
quotations from Lardner's notes were a lie ? I was always 
of opinion that he who adopts a quotation as his own, is 
to answer for it if wrong. 

Dr. Scott in the notes on his Family Bible, has made use 
of thousands of quotations, for which I consider he is re- 
sponsible : but wherein he differs he mentions it. It is 
very well that there are judges besides my opponent and 
his followers, or else I should be doomed to suffer his 
aionian punishment. 

Now, take notice, that one of these two or three dread- 
ful falsehoods which I have so modestly been charged with, 
is, that in his Lectures, where, speaking of the denomina- 
tions, he says he does not mean persons but their opinions. 
Although he says, page 227, " It is not at all surprising, 
that the doctrine of antichrist should associate all the 
character of the ferocious " beast" with that of the God 
who is to be worshipped by its votaries. For, unless the 



172 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

" beast" bore the appellation of God, among his worship- 
pers, and antichrist also was considered the true Christy 
neither the one nor the other would be worshipped at all. 
Therefore, let no one suppose that we have aught against 
these deceived worshippers. No — we feel for them both 
pity and compassion: and consider that we shall be doing 
them the greatest possible kindness, by pointing out to 
them the cruelty of their God, and the abomination of alt 
such worship.' 5 

Now, what does lie here mean by antichrist? Can you 
suppose it is the doctrines which he means, certainly not, 
but those who hold them and which at the close he desig- 
nates with the title of beasts. 

Now, my friends, I ask you, which shows himself to be 
the antichrist, he who wishes to turn all the historical 
truths of Jesus Christ into parables, or he who represents 
them as historical truths, delivered by our Lord himself? 
I believe there are some who believe the account of Adam 
and the fall of man, a parable, instead of a relation of 
historical facts as they are represented in the scriptures. 

Now, my opponent is not satisfied with calling all those 
who hold this doctrine, " beasts," but when I said, sup- 
pose we were to examine his doctrine, (system was the 
term I used,) and when I attempted to show that it was 
antichristian, I was represented as uncharitable. Now, 
what difference is there between doctrine and system ? — 
Whenever he uses the term doctrines or systems, there- 
fore, we are not to understand those who hold them, but 
any thing you please. 

When I speak of doctrines, or systems, I wish you par- 
ticularly to understand, that I speak in reference to those 
who hold them. And, now, I declare that their doctrine, 
or system, and, lest I should be misunderstood, those who 
hold them, are antichristian ! and I would maintain it, 
though with bayonets pointed at my breast! I wish not to 
evade the truth, nor to eat my own words ; and I ask you, 
when my opponent says to us, (the " children of mystical 
Babylon") — " Come out of her, that ye be not partakers of 
her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:" Does 
he think that we are in Christ Jesus ? 

Again, my opponent has given us his opinion of Dr. 
Priestly, (whom, I suppose, must be a Trinitarian, as well 
as Griesbach) and has told us that he coincides with him. 
This he need not have done, for we know, by his Lectures, 
<hat he does correspond, exactly, with Dr. Priestly's infi- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 17 & 

del sentiments. I would have brought the book with me, 
but I was too late. And I now remember that Dr. Priestly 
has made the very remark that my opponent has done, and 
if they are right we are idolaters and impious in worship- 
ping Jesus Christ, whom they say is not God, and, there- 
fore, not an object of divine worship ; and yet he would 
embrace us, idolaters, in the arms of Charity, and wants 
lis to pray for him; and yet, his father confessor, has, in 
connexion with himself, called our praying idolatry \ The 
true antichrist, however, has already had his cloven foot 
held forth to the world. 

Dr. Priestly, like my opponent, sent his challenges into 
all the world. Dr. James, of Scotland, who was then Pre- 
sident of a college there, answered it. But the learned 
Doctor never presumed to reply even to the aionian age! 
But his work was so full of ignorance, and of gross impi- 
ety, that many, even of his followers, in New England 
connexion, absolutely scouted it. 

With regard to the good doctor's piety, Dr. Miller has 
proved to the world, that he positively denies the scrip- 
tures to be inspired. I could readily have proved this to 
you, if I had brought a book of his with me, entitled 
f* Corruptions of Christianity ;" but, from such infidels as 
Priestly, Griesbach, and all of them who it can be proved 
reject the word of God ;• — from such pious, charitable 
characters, may 1 be preserved. 

I recollect now, an observation that was made by my 
opponent, which, at the time, appeared so light that it had 
almost passed my memory — he said that my translations 
of both the Hebrew and the Greek were wrong: he said, 
(I shall continue to pronounce according to Parkhurst) 
that the Greek terms, rendered in our common version for 
ever and ever, signify to the ages and longer. I suppose 
he thinks himself at liberty to put in a word to suit his 
own views, and that od oulami od, in the Hebrew trans- 
lated world without end, does not mean an absolute eterni- 
ty ; and that we have taken the absolute construction of it 
without any authority, but to suit our own convenience. — • 
He, therefore, has put in the words and longer, to suit the 
views of the Universalists. The truth is, it should be 
rendered to the endless ages of eternity, and my opponent 
puts in the word and, so as to make it read, to the ages 
and longer ! 

I could have brought Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon with 
me, but I did not suppose that he would have dared to 



174 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION". 

throw such contempt on this respectable congregation, as 
to make such a bold assertion, that od oulami od signifies 
to the ages of eternity and longer! My opponent has ac- 
knowledged that od oulami od, rendered world rvithout 
end, means an absolute eternity, which is all I wanted him 
to do ; for the rest of his blunders or errors are so palpa- 
bly ridiculous, that I question, myself, whether I should 
notice them at all. 

As to his appeal to the learned Professor, or to the 
Judges, or to any other person, I do not choose to agree 
to it. My opponent would not let me appeal to Washing- 
ton in the early part of the debate ; but wished me to con- 
fine myself to the scriptures only. As I do not feel dis- 
posed to be entirely at his disposal, I shall now confine 
myself to those scriptures, as my only authority, for the 
decision of every point in discussion. 

11 o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland, — My opponent has spent the whole of 
his last half hour, with the exception of four or five min- 
utes, by the watch, in making an apology to you, for what 
I never thought of accusing him ; his object, however, is 
very manifest. It can be for no other purpose than to 
lead your minus from the subject of this debate, to turn 
the prejudices of this assembly, if possible, against me, 
and to turn the laugh of the weaker part of it in his fa- 
vour. 

I noticed the difference of pronunciation between my 
opponent and me, not that I thought that I was correct, 
nor, that my opponent was wrong; but as I read the He- 
brew without points, and as I had never heard it pro- 
nounced as my opponent pronounced it, I thought proper 
to give some reason for pronouncing as I did, considering 
that I might have been wrong ; at the same time I am not 
aware that my opponent is any more correct than myself; 
nor, that there is any certain standard of pronouncing the 
dead languages ; and this is all I wished to convey to your 
minds. 

I now also wish you to understand, distinctly, that in 
my opinion, we came here, neither to declaim against the 
hijidel Dr. Priestly, as my opponent has been pleased to 
term him, nor I, to act as his champion, or his defender ; 
but I have wished, and repeatedly have expressed the 
wish, since the commencement of this debate, that my op- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 175 

ponent would confine himself to the subject in discussion, 
and I have pledged myself to do so. I had hoped that he 
had, at last, determined to do so : and that we had brought 
this controvers3 r to a few points which must soon have 
settled it : but the last half hour he has been endeavouring 
to carry you off from the subject as far back as ever, which 
was evidently done to lead your minds from those points 
to which I had brought him. 

In my former speech I endeavoured to show you that he 
had failed, upon every ground which he had attempted, of 
proving his point,* and, sensible of this, he has tried to 
divert your minds from the decisive point to which I had 
brought him. He has objected to my translation of -# 
"•obiy ny od oulami od, and says it should be rendered, 
" to the ages of futurity." Well, let him have it so. I 
would as leave take his translation of it as my own. Let 
od oulami od mean to the endless ages of eternity, if he 
pleases; it answers my purpose just as well as the trans- 
lation which T have given it,' for in neither way does it 
imply that TZrfty oulam, of itself, means an absolute eter- 
nity. But I asked him to show me a passage where the 
terms od oulami od, in this connexion, (which are the only 
terms used in Isa. xlv. 17, and which may mean an ab- 
solute eternity,) were connected with punishment, misery, 
or death, and which, therefore, proves them to be of equal 
duration. But, has he done it ? Has he shown you a single 
passage where this phrase is used in connexion with pun- 
ishment? Why, I ask, has he not attended to tliis point, 
instead of leading you from this important subject? It can 
be for no other reason than this: — he knows he cannot! 
lie knows no such passage exists in the sacred volume, or 
else he would have gladly produced it against me, and thus 
have put an end to the debate. Let, then, his not even at- 
tempting to do this, have its full weight in your minds ; 
and it must go to prove the truth of the argument I have 
brought against him. It was on this I told you we should 
stand or fall ! This was the pivot on which this discussion 
w r as to turn ! How has it turned ? Has he proved his part 
of the proposition ? Has he met me on the point which was 
to decide it? No, he has not. And is it because he has 
evaded it, and has tried to lead you away from it, that his 
cause is rising? Does his cause yet rise? Does it yet 
make the shining faces as I understand so many of his 
friends had this morning ? 



176 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

I challenged him to show me a passage where tire 
same phrase is used with reference to punishment as is 
used in Isa. xlv. 17, and which is rendered in the common 
version, world without end, and is there connected with, 
and brought to prove eternal salvation ! I again re- 
peat this challenge ! If he does, or can show it, he has the 
argument ; and if not, the argument must he mine. 

The phrase which is there used to express the perpetu- 
ity of salvation, is never found in connexion with punish- 
ment, misery, or death ; and if it cannot be found, why 
should he longer waste your time by contending for the 
punishment of the wicked being absolutely eternal ? I 
again repeat that there is no phrase like it in the bible 
found in connexion with punishment. This I have stated, 
and if it can be shown to be false, let my opponent show it. 

With respect to the Greek term etfos hades, and the He- 
brew ^tftP sheol, I produced the opinions of two learned 
Doctors ot his own sentiments, namely, Dr. Campbell and 
Dr. Wilson ; and although I gave them as my authority 
for not using these words according to the common ac- 
ceptation of the word, Hell, I did not say that they held 
the doctrine of Universal salvation ; for, in truth, I never 
thought nor understood that they did. I appealed to them 
to show that the two words, hades and sheol, have no re- 
ference whatever to any thing else but the state of the 
dead, whether good or bad, and have no reference what- 
ever to a state of punishment after death. I further men- 
tioned, that if he disagrees with them, he must settle the 
dispute with them ; that it would on that point, be no longer 
between him and me ; and as they have given up all but 
the term Gehenna, as a place of future punishment for the 
wicked, if it be found on examination, that this term, Ge- 
henna, is the only word used in the Greek to imply, as 
they say, tire place of punishment in a future state, how 
can he reconcile it with the declaration of the apostle 
Paul ? For he says, [in Acts, xx. 27,] " For I have not 
shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." 
Now how could he in truth say this, when he never once 
made use of this term Gehenna or hell, in all his preaching? 
Ah ! Paul, have you preached the whole counsel of God ? 
And yet we cannot find this wonderful term in all your 
preaching ! ! ! 

Now, my hearers, I ask you, How could Paul preach 
the whole counsel of God, and yet not preach the Gehenna 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 177 

or Hell of my opponent, if this doctrine of Hell be con- 
tained in any part of the counsel of God ? 

But, to give my opponent every opportunity of proving 
his doctrine, if he can, I will make another proposition to 
him, — That if he can produce even a solitary passage 
wlier* Paul preached Gehenna (or Hell) he shall have the 
argument, and I will fall. — I must acknowledge that I am 
going upon very safe ground here, because 1 know there 
is no such passage to be found. 

He stated in his last speech, that I thought he did not 
pronounce correctly, because he had not been taught by 
me. I find no fault, however, with his pronunciation ; it 
is the meaning only for which I contend : and I will now 
give him another lesson ; (since I have been dealing out 
lessons to him, both bitter and sweet!) — If he can prove 
that Jesus Christ himself threatened with the punishment 
of Gehenna any others than Jews, and them only in two 
places, except when addressing his disciples, in the whole 
of the New Testament, it shall be his argument. 

In every instance, except two, where Christ uses the 
word Gehenna, he is addressing himself to his immediate 
disciples ; and surely he was not threatening them with 
the punishment of Gehenna in the sense in which my op- 
ponent uses the term ! Will my opponent pretend that they 
were liable to this punishment ? No. For were he to say 
that Christ's immediate disciples were in danger of Ge- 
henna, as he represents it, it would involve more than he 
is, perhaps, aware of. And what is very remarkable, the 
punishment of Gehenna is never threatened to the Gentiles, 
It is never mentioned by any of the apostles except James, 
and he only uses it figuratively : he says, [James iii. 6,] 
" And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity : [so] 
is the tongue among our members, it defileth the whole 
body, and setteth on fire the wheels of nature ; and is itself 
set on fire from gehenna." Here is the only place where 
the word is used in the New Testament, except by Christ 
himself; and the two only places where he speaks of it, 
except to his immediate disciples, are in the 23d chapter 
of Matthew; the first is at the 15th verse, "Woe unto you 
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and 
land to make one proselyte : and when he is made, ye 
make him two-fold more the child of Gehenna (or hell) 
than yourselves ;" and the other place is the 3Sd verse of 
the same chapter, " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, 
how can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna V 9 These are 



178 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

the only two passages where he used the word, except in 
giving instructions to his disciples. 

Yes, my hearers, such is the language of the New Tes- 
tament. How different the preaching of Christ and hi* 
apostles from that of modern preachers ! Christ but seldom, 
and the apostles never, in all their preaching, used that 
word upon which you may, in our day, hear so many 
changes rung from their pulpits in one sermon, and with- 
out a little of which no sermon would be considered by the 
modern clergy as orthodox ! 

Is the cause of my opponent still rising ? Has he gain- 
ed such a wonderful victory ? — The nearer a man ap- 
proaches to the brink of a steep precipice the greater is the 
danger of his falling over. Has it not been so with my 
opponent? He would have drawn back, but I was too close 
behind him. 

Now, how stands our argument? You, my hearers, are 
to be the judges, and let it terminate as it will, it should 
still be remembered that we did not come here to contend 
for the mastery. Truth should be our only object. I am 
sensible that the truth of God will stand, although he and 
I should contend forever. — Truth, God's eternal truth we 
never can alter. * ( My counsel, (saith he,) shall stand, and 
I will do all my pleasure." There is no occasion, in ad- 
vocating it, to use declamation nor satire, much less to at- 
tempt to turn the arguments of the opposite side into ridi- 
cule: neither is there any occasion for personalities. I have 
the satisfaction of knowing, however, that they go, with 
this respectable audience, for full as much as they are 
worth ; and that the judicious will attribute them to the 
true source. If any have dropped from the lips of your pre- 
sent speaker, I hope you will attribute it to his irritability 
of mind, and not to any intention to injure the feelings of 
his opponent, nor to excite the feelings of any in this as- 
sembly : and I also hope, any that may be made by my op- 
ponent will not be taken for sound argument. 

But, "to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not 
according to this word it is because there is no light in 
them." Has my opponent shown any law as contained in 
the scriptures, which requires the eternal punishment of 
the wicked ? Although I have so repeatedly called upon 
him to do so, has he shown you any thing from the pro- 
phets which proves such a punishment ? No, he has not : 
for, according to his own words and from the plain decla- 
rations of the scripture, the only passage which is applied 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 179 

to their punishment, may be, and often is used in a limited 
sense; while he has found a phrase connected with salva- 
tion, which, he says, should be translated to the ages of fu- 
turity. Now, why has he not shown that this phrase is 
also connected with punishment? It is, my hearers, be- 
cause he cannot J Has he from the attributes of God, shown 
that it is consistent with the justice of a God of Love and 
Mercy to doom the greater portion of his helpless off- 
spring to never ending torment? Has he shown from the 
attributes of God that he requires the absolutely eternal 
punishment of the wicked ? No, he has neither done one 
nor the other. 

What do we learn from the attributes of God ? Jesus 
Christ says, (Matt. v. 43,) " Ye have heard that it hath 
been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine 
enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless 
them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and 
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute 
you ; that ye may be the children of your Father which is 
in heaven : for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and 
on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the un- 
just;" and verse 48, "Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as 
your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Why does 
Jesus Christ tell us to love our enemies that we may be 
perfect like his Father and like himself, (for he is declar- 
ed to be the express image of God,) if God's justice re- 
quires him to take full satisfaction by wreaking his ven- 
geance upon his offspring? Jesus says, we should love 
our enemies that we may be children of our Father in hea- 
ven : i. e. characteristically, for we are all so by creation. 
Why ? Did he love his enemies? Or docs God through him 
require of us the practice of that love and virtue which he 
does not practise himself? Did he pray for them who des- 
pitefully used him and persecuted him? Yes, [in Lukexxiii. 
34,] he prayed for those who put him to an ignominious 
death ; he said, " Father forgive them for they know not 
what they do." 

Thus we find that our heavenly Father is kind to all, 
even to the whole creation, and that his kind providence 
is over all : " he openeth his hand liberally, and satisfieth 
the desire of every living thing," Ps. civ. 16. 

Does my opponent preach this doctrine that Jesus Christ 
preached ? No. He tells you that God hates his enemies, 
and that he will plunge them into Hell, where " they shall 
be continually increasing in torment and misery to the end- 



180 THEOLOGICAL DISCUS SlOtf. 

less ages of eternity ," Now, my hearers, if you find this 
doctrine in the volume of nature and revelation, pray give 
the argument to my opponent ; but on the other hand, if 
what God has revealed in his word he true, as you will 
find it revealed in Ps. cxlv. 9, " The Lord is good to all, 
and his tender mercies are over all his works," then the 
argument is against my opponent and his doctrine. It is 
no matter by whom this testimony was advanced ; it is a 
truth admitted by all the lovers of God ; and if it be true 
that God is good to all, why will not you, my hearers, and 
also my opponent, acknowledge him as such. And al- 
though the Father of all mercies has said, [Ps.lxxxix. 32^ 
33,] that he will visit the transgressions of his children 
" with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes," he adds, 
" Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take 
from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail." And again, 
Heb. xii. 9 — 11, 6i Furthermore, we have had fathers of 
our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; 
shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father 
of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chas- 
tened us after their own pleasure ; but he for our profit, 
that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now, no chas- 
tening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous : 
nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of 
righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Is 
this the purpose of God ? Then, my hearers, he only pun- 
ishes us for our profit. How then can man be punished to 
an absolute eternity? Is this for his profit? And although 
the apostle says we are chastened, yet he says this chas- 
tisement produceth "the peaceable fruits of righteousness." 
But how can a punishment that is endless in its duration 
yield 6i the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them who 
are exercised thereby ? There is no afterward to an abso- 
lute eternity, consequently it can never yield the peacea- 
ble fruits of righteousness to those who endure it. It now 
belongs to my opponent to show that both the Psalmist 
and the apostle were wrong, else he must resort to some 
other means to prove his doctrine. You all know that I 
have been urging him to meet me upon the point which I 
have proposed to him, and he will not do it : he wants to 
prove his own doctrine in his own way, and that is, by 
turning the laugh in his favour, and by ridiculing his op- 
ponent ; and this, he thinks, will be taken by you for ar- 
gument : but in this way he might continue this discussion 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 181 

not only for days, but even weeks or months for aught I 
know ; and in the end it would be of no benefit to any. 

If you came here to receive instruction, or even from 
motives of curiosity, you, no doubt, wish those who speak 
to come to the point. Now, have I not done this from first 
to last ? He, on the other hand, from the first evaded my 
questions, and has continued to do so. He thinks, because 
he has brought text after test, without attempting to prove 
his interpretation of them to be correct by fair argument, 
that he has proved his doctrine : whether he has done so 
or not, you, my hearers, must judge. 

I have called upon him to answer me according to his 
own meaning of the phrase od oulami od, and to show that 
if it be ever used in connexion with punishment ; and, be- 
cause he has not attended to it, but spent his whole half 
hour in remarking upon pronunciations, &c. — Is his cause 
yet rising V He has neither met my arguments, nor at* 
tended closely to his own. 

Has he shown that the declarations of God, in the scrip- 
tures, are true, and yet that his creatures are to be pun- 
ished to an absolute eternity ? No, he has not. If, there- 
fore, the discussion is to be continued in this way, there 
is no saying when it will end. He wished you to believe 
yesterday, that I had said, or at least intimated, that the 
discussion would be closed last evening. I did no such 
thing. I merely said, that as he had stated that the de- 
bate was drawn to a point, or pivot, on which it must 
finally turn, that it was probable that the discussion would 
soon be ended, or something to that effect. But I do not 
now know that it will close this week. I am, on my part, 
willing to continue it so long as my health and strength 
last; and, if he is willing to risk his brethren to hear my 
doctrine, I am very willing to risk mine to hear his ; there- 
fore, as long as the discussion be continued, I am willing 
that as many should hear it as possibly can. 

I now sincerely hope, beg, and entreat my opponent »o 
meet me directly, without any further evasion of the ques- 
tion which I proposed to him. If he can, let him find the 
passage in which the words "U? 'dSu? ny are found in con- 
nexion with punishment, misery, or death, and again I say, 
I will give him the argument, and our discussion will end: 
and if he can do it, I intreat him to do it at once. 

I again appeal to the Hebrew Professor, whether this 
Hebrew phrase, od oulami od, used here in connexion with 
salvation, is not stronger than the one in Daniel [xih 2,] 



182 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

which is the strongest my opponent has brought in the 
Hebrew, to prove the duration of the punishment of the 
wicked. 

He has criticised upon my rendering of these words. Let 
him criticise as much as he pleases, only let him show me 
the terms, even according to his own rendering, used in 
connexion with sin, misery, or death, and it is all I ask of 
him ; and if he cannot do this, will his cause rise any more? 
No, it will sink od oulami od ! — Or, if he wishes it, let him 
rest the point on the meaning of the words Sheol and Hades, 
where the rich man was, both rendered Hell in the com- 
mon version, and if it is given against me by competent 
judges, he shall have the argument He will then have to 
settle the point with Drs. Wilson and Campbell. But as 
I should be sorry to be the means of setting Dr. Wilson 
and him at variance, I am willing to rest it on the mean- 
ing of the word Gehenna, (in this he will probably have 
them both with him,) and if he can prove that the term 
Gehenna was ever used by the prophets, by Jesus Christ, 
or by his apostles, to signify a future place of punishment, 
in another world, he shall have the argument. 

I am aware that this term CD^JlJ gehinnom or hell may 
be found in the Targums as implying a place of future, 
though not of endless punishment : but it is in the scrip- 
tures, which we receive as the word of God, that it must 
be found to be alleged as proof in this case. 

I have now stated every ground or point at issue : and 
I know of no other that we can go upon to decide this de- 
bate. If, however, my opponent knows of any other 
ground that is equally fair, and will state it, I have no 
objection. I am willing to meet him on his own ground, 
or to do any thing that, according to the principles of can- 
dour, Christianity, or theology, I ought to do in such a 
case. If, however, he will not meet me in any reasona- 
ble way, but persists in going on in such a manner as he 
did when he was last up, I shall expect to see this now 
numerous and respectable audience dwindle away, if our 
strength does not give out, till we have not a single hear- 
er left, and the dispute be left to be settled between our- 
selves. I hope, then, he will no longer delay coming to a 
close upon one of these points. 

My time is out. — He has now his thirty minutes to tell 
us what he means to do. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Hi o'clock, 

Mr. M'Calla. — I am sorry my opponent should be un- 
der any apprehension of our being left without any au- 
dience, and that we shall be left to settle the discussion 
between ourselves; like Epictetus (or Epicurus.) — Formy 
part, I am under no concern about my friends not attend- 
ing ; and, in truth, I have not brought any of them to hear 
this debate, except a cousin of mine who was kind enough 
to accompany me. 

Yesterday a friend called upon me about the time that I 
was leaving home ; I asked him if he was coming dow r n 
here, — as he was not, I was not offended with him. I am 
not concerned to have a large assemblage of my friends 
to hear us ; all that I am concerned for is the cause of 
Truth ; and while I am advocating this cause, I endea- 
vour to cherish a kind and friendly feeling towards all, 
and to feel as if no one entertained a bitter and hostile 
feeling towards me. Yet I desire not the friendship of 
any man in opposition to my duty ; my desire is to please 
that God whom I serve, and to be instrumental in his 
hands to the edifying of many precious souls. 

I have been called upon by my opponent to answer seve- 
ral questions which he has been pleased to ask me, and 
which he has also said shall decide this discussion. 

After such treatment as I have experienced from him 
for the last half hour, after he has tried by every means in 
his power to bring the word of God and his ministering 
servants into contempt, (in which, however, he has been, 
happily, disappointed,) and after he has told you that I 
spent my last half hour in nothing but treating him with 
satire and ridicule, and trying to turn the laugh in my 
own favour ; after, I say, he can make such statements 
concerning me, (when, in truth, it was his own conduct he 
was picturing,) I do not feel myself disposed to answer 
his questions exactly in the order he wishes me ; but con- 
sider myself at perfect liberty to go on in my own track. 

It is sometimes necessary to treat such gross absurdities 
as my opponent has introduced to your notice, with ridi- 
cule, for they do not deserve any serious attention. As I 
am willing, however, to give him all the credit he deserves, 
I must admit, that during the last half hour, he offered 
something like argument ; part of which may be worth 



185 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

answering. I shall, however, as I hefore observed, pur- 
sue my own track and go on in my own way. 

He must not suppose that I will say all I have to say at 
once, and close this discussion just when he pleases : he 
does not do so himself: and he has promised to con- 
tinue it, God willing, till both parties are satisfied. I 
claim, therefore, this agreement as my privilege as well 
as his. I cannot say all I have to say in defence of those 
truths which I believe, in half an hour, nor can I promise 
to do so in one afternoon. But to the point. 

My opponent has stated in one of his remarks, that it is 
incumbent on me to show that a certain expression which 
is applied to salvation, (Isa. xlv. 17, od oulami od,) ren- 
dered world without end, is applied to punishment, misery, 
or death ; and he knows, or thinks he does, that it is never 
applied so in the sacred volume. Admitting this to be 
the case, that this phrase is not used in connexion with pun- 
ishment, misery, or death, there is sufficient of other tes- 
timony to prove it absolutely eternal. It puts me much 
in mind of an objection that is brought by infidels and un- 
believers against Trinitarians. Show me, say they, the 
word Trinity in the scriptures, and I will believe you : 
and because the word Trinity is not actually mentioned, 
though the inspired volume contains positive proof of its 
truth, this is the way they, (I mean Unitarians,) attempt 
to excuse their infidelity. 

It is like those Unitarians of old, .who, while they were 
putting to an ignominious death the Lord of life and glory, 
they said to him, nearly in the same manner as my oppo- 
nent has said to me, 6i Come down from the cross and we 
will believe," [Matt, xxvii. 42.] Just so with them and 
my opponent. 

Is it not lamentable, my friends, to see the spirit of bold 
infidelity stalking about our streets even in our day ? But 
it is now as it was then : nothing but the regenerating in- 
fluence of the Holy Spirit can change their hard hearts. 

He further says, that I have " brought forth text after 
text of scripture, without argument." I consider, my 
friends, that 1 have brought forth innumerable and unan- 
swerable arguments, and which I conceive are sufficient 
to prove the truth of my doctrine to the satisfaction of all 
true believers. But my opponent says that I must show 
that Jesus Christ and his apostles preached eternal tor- 
ments to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, or else he 
will not believe it. It is very strange, my friends, that 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 1'85 

my opponent should require this of me. I might do the 
same hy him, and say, you must prove that Paul preached 
in Ireland, or in Philadelphia, else I will not believe that 
he preached at Rome. But I receive the blessed word of 
divine truth as it is, and when I find that Jesus Christ 
preached the eternal damnation of the wicked to the Jews, 
I receive it in the same manner as if he had preached it to 
me or to the Gentiles ; and if he says the wicked are to 
be punished to an endless eternity, I will believe that he 
said it of all who live and die wicked. Again, if Christ 
says that the doctrine of grace is not to be extended to un- 
believers, I will believe it, because he says it ; if he says, 
" I go to prepare a place" for the reception of believers, I 
will believe it ; if he says it is better for a man to lose the 
whole world rather than to " lose his own soul," I will 
believe it; if he says, they that "blaspheme against the 
Holy Ghost can never be forgiven," I will believe it ; if 
he says, " the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, 
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous," I will 
believe it ; if he says that sinners cannot be saved, I will 
believe it ; if he says, *« and these shall go away into ever- 
lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels," I will 
believe him ; if he. says, they shall go to a place " where 
their worm dieth not and their fire is not quenched," I will 
believe it; if he says that "these shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal," I 
will believe it, even if no other person in the universe be- 
lieved it ; finally, if he says that the rich man was in Hell 
tormented with fire which shall never be quenched, I will 
believe it ; and it will not matter with me what word is 
used to express this place of torment; I will believe that 
the wicked are enduring these torments, whether unbe- 
lievers do or not. 

My opponent has said that the word "hades signifies no- 
thing more than the grave," and he calls upon me to prove 
that it signifies any thing more. Let it, however, signify 
what it may, the rich man is represented in the scriptures 
as being in hades, and as being in torments, and in such 
kind of torments that he prayed for a drop of water to cool 
his parched tongue! But my opponent thinks that there 
are some in this assembly who know so little, that he can 
make them believe that I differ from the learned Dr. Camp- 
bell of Scotland, and the still more learned Dr. Wilson of 
this city. And he thought, and, no doubt, hoped, I would 
pass this over without comment, but he is mistaken. 

24 



186 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

I have stated that my opponent had used something like 
argument in his last speech : true, but it is of that kind 
which we call unsound / 

I agree with those two gentlemen, and also with my 
opponent, that Hades signifies the place of departed spi- 
rits ; but you will please to observe that in this account 
of our Lord, the one is found in one place in Hades and the 
other in another. 

Admit that the meaning of the word Hades is the invi- 
sible world ; then both Lazarus and the rich man may go 
there, and yet one may go to a place of happiness and the 
other to a place of misery. — I am a little surprised that 
my opponent contends for this meaning, when he does not 
believe that the soul is separated from the body, but that 
it sleeps in the grave, and that when the body ceases to 
exist the soul ceases to exist also. Hence he says that 
David's soul yet sleeps with his body in the grave, and as 
his authority for this, he perverts that passage of Peter, 
[Acts ii. 34,] " For David is not ascended into the hea- 
vens ;!' when in truth the apostle meant, that at the time 
when David wrote he had not ascended, &c. 

But these men, I mean my opponent and his coadjutors, 
are materialists, who consider that the soul is connected 
with the body as sound is connected with a violin ; the mo- 
ment the violin is broken or destroyed, that moment its 
capacity to produce a sound, is destroyed, and the mo- 
ment the body of a man ceases to exist, that moment his 
soul ceases to exist also : and to me they appear not to be 
one step short of doubting the existence of their Creator. 
In fact, Dr. Priestly, who was one of them, did do it. 
Professor Stuart, however, gave a seasonable check to his 
infidelity, and showed the heresy of his opinions. — So true 
it is, my friends, and it is an awful truth, that " The fool 
doth say in his heart, there is no God." 

Now you will remember that my opponent said that this 
dispute should turn upon the word Hades : let it be so, 
then. You will also take notice that he admits that it 
means the invisible world. — Admitting that both the rich 
man and Lazarus went to this invisible world, they went 
to different apartments in it, the one went to that apart- 
ment where he was in torment, the other to the apartment 
of happiness ; and to prove to you that this is the mean- 
ing, you will observe that there was placed a gulf between 
them, which, you are told, is impassable. Here, then, is 
such a description given, which puts beyond doubt that 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 18? 

they were in different apartments, and so separated, that 
it was impossible to pass from one to the other. 

He has said the same of Gehenna : hut I will not take 
up your time in noticing them, as I conceive it is only ne- 
cessary to notice the most important. 

He has reserved to himself many phots in this contro- 
versy, so that should it turn upon one to his disadvantage, 
he has many others to which he can resort : but we will 
rout him from them till the dispute is decided, and he is 
fairly beaten out. 

It puts me much in mind of the Indian mode of warfare, 
—When General Wayne, with his army, during the war, 
went out against the Indians, they would select a tree, and 
say, " Here we will take our stand !" — Rout them from 
this, and they would select another, and say, " Here now 
we take our stand \" And so they would go from tree to 
tree, until beaten from all, and driven into the open prai- 
rie, they were at length obliged to surrender, for which 
they excused themselves by declaring they were drunk ; — 
thus, they would tell a lie to excuse their defeat. — This is 
the case with the enemies to the truth of the gospel, when 
they find they are driven from all their points, they resort 
to scurrility and abuse ! 

The passage or phrase, (od oulami od,) which is used 
in connexion with the future happiness of the saints, he in- 
sists I must show is used in connexion with the punish- 
ment, misery, or death of the wicked. — Every Hebrew 
scholar must agree with me in the translation which I have 
given to this term, namely, that it means to the ages of futu- 
rity. It is a Hebraism used to imply an absolute eternity. 
But show me, says he, an expression applied to punish- 
ment, misery, or death, that signifies a future eternity. — 
Of what use, I ask, is the term future, when applied to 
eternity ? Do not you know that the expression, n There 
will be no end to their torments," implies a future eterni- 
ty ? None ever did live in past eternity, and the term obiy 
oulam, which is used to imply eternity past and to come, is 
used with respect to God, but is very seldom applied to the 
happiness of the saints : but when it is used for this pur- 
pose, it does not mean they have been happy from, but will 
be happy to all eternity: and if the scriptures declare that 
the saints will be happy to all eternity, it is the same 
thing, and is always understood to mean to a future eter- 
nity. The same is meant with regard to the eternity of 
the punishment of the wicked in the passage, [Dan, xii. 2,] 



188 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

some shall awake "to shame and {oulam) everlasting con- 
tempt." Now, are they condemned to suffer this shame 
or torment to a past eternity ? No : you all know that it is 
to a future : but this quibbling shows the despicable situ- 
ation to which the cause of my opponent is reduced, and 
the desperate state of him who uses it. 

We have, we think, clearly shown from the Old Testa- 
ment, that the term used in connexion with the duration 
of the punishment of the wicked, implies an absolute eter- 
nity. We have also shown that the term *iw axon is used 
to express eternity past and to come ; and that in all pas- 
sages which I have quoted, where it is used in connexion, 
it implies an endless duration of time, and net as my oppo- 
nent would have you believe, according to the way in 
which he translates it, " to the ages of ages." 

The only difficulty of the translation of this passage, we 
will endeavour to explain ; but whether it will be this af- 
ternoon or to-morrow, I cannot now pretend to say. 

It was suggested to me by a friend that I had forgot to 
answer that quotation of my opponent from Ps. ii. 8. I 
have not forgotten it, but will give it proper attention, to- 
gether with some others which he has advanced, at a pro- 
per time. I do not wish to answer them in a feeble man- 
ner, but to put them for ever at rest. I shall, therefore, 
put them in better order, and marshall them better than 
he has, and will endeavour to present them to you in the 
strongest possible light ; and will do that justice to my 
opponent's cause which he has neglected to do for himself. 
He has neither done justice to his followers nor to their 
cause; I shall, therefore, endeavour to do it for him, by 
presenting his arguments to you in the most forcible man- 
ner possible. 

I told you that the terms «<&>v, and */a>v«?, which in our com- 
mon version are rendered/or ever, occurred 62 times, and 
that in the duplicate form the terms uc Tovs*im*.c ™v aimw, 
rendered for ever and ever, was more emphatical, but sig- 
nified the same thing ; that in 17 passages it was rendered 
forever, and signified an absolute eternity ; one of which is 
in Matt. vi. 13, " For thine is the kingdom, and the pow- 
er and the glory for ever ;" another in Rom, i. 25, " Who 
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped the 
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever; 
also, [Rom. ix. 5,] ** Who is over all, God blessed for 
ever." This certainly implies that he never shall come to 
an end. [Rom. xi. 36,] " For of him, and through him, and 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 189 

to him are all things, to whom be glory for ever. Amen." 
[Gal. i. 3,] " Grace be to you, and peace from God the 
Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave him- 
self for our sins that he might deliver us from this present 
evil world, according to the will of God our Father, to 
whom be glory for ever and ever" And several other pas- 
sages, such as I enumerated yesterday, as, [2 John, 2,] 
" For the truth's sake which dwelleth in us, and shall be 
in us for ever." [Luke i. 55 9 ] " As he spake to our fa- 
thers, and to Abraham and his seed for ever." [1 Peter* 
i. 25,] " But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 
Rev. vii. 12, "Saying, Amen: blessing, and glory, and 
wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and 
might, be unto our God for ever and ever." Ps. xlv. 6, 
" Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Now, my 
friends, is the throne of God to last to an absolute 
eternity or not ? If it is, so will all those wicked, of which 
the scriptures speak, be punished to an absolute eternity. 
i — Some others relate to the eternity of Christ's kingdom, 
as I have already shown you ; in twenty-one others to the 
happiness of his saints, and in several others it merely re- 
lates to temporal things. In one place it relates to the 
abiding of the Holy Spirit with his people, that is, his 
saints, for ever ; [John xiv. 16,] " And I will pray the 
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he 
may abide with you for ever ; even the Spirit of truth ; 
whom the world cannot receive," &c. 

It has already been acknowledged by my opponent that 
when this term is applied to the happiness of the saints, it 
means that they shall he happy to eternity. Some of the 
passages which speak of this, are as follows : 

[John iv. 14,] "But whosoever drinketh of the water 
that I shall give him, shall never thirst ; but the water 
that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water spring- 
ing up into everlasting life." But my opponent may at- 
tempt to colour his objection to the absolute meaning of 
this word when applied to punishment by his not transla- 
ting the term aionion ; but we are not obliged to take every 
translation that is presented to us. — Again, [John vi. 58,] 
" This is that bread which came down from heaven; not 
as your fathers did eat manna and are dead ; he that eat- 
eth of this bread shall live for ever" [John viii. 51,] 
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying 
he shall never see death." By this we are not to suppose 



190 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOX. 

a natural death ; u for it is appointed unto all men once to 
die, and then the judgment;" hut it was the second death 
which those who helieve were not to taste, — the death to 
an absolute eternity ! Every one knows that our Lord did 
not mean that they were to abide here and not to die a na- 
tural death. No, it was a spiritual death he was speaking 
of; but the Jews did not understand him, therefore, they 
said he had a devil, because he said, [John viii. 52,] " If 
a man keep my sayings he shall never taste of death." 
Neither do believers taste the bitterness of even a natural 
death. It is deprived of its sting to them, but not to un- 
believers. [John x. 28,] " And I give unto them eternal 
life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck 
them out of my hand." You see then, my friends, that 
the salvation of believers is certain. He does not say that 
none shall pluck the wicked out of his hand. [John ii. 26,] 
" Whosoever liveth and belie veth in me shall never die." 
[2 Cor. ix. 9,] " He hath dispersed abroad j he hath given 
to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever." [1 
John ii. 17,] "And the world passeth away, and the lusts 
thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever," 
[Rom. xxii. 5,] " And there shall be no night there, and 
they need no candles, neither light of the sun : for the 
Lord God giveth them light, and they shall reign for 
ever and ever.' 9 That is, his saints shall reign for 
ever and ever. He does not say the wicked shall. — All 
will acknowledge, even my opponent, that these all re- 
late to eternal duration, where the expression used is 

Aicev 9 &C. 

Six others relate to other things where the time is un- 
certain, as the existence of the things to which it is ap- 
plied, such as where it is used in relation to things of a 
temporal nature, thus : [John viii. 35,] " And the ser- 
vant abideth not in the house for ever 9 but the son abi- 
deth for ever." Who does not know that this expression 
was used by our Lord to show the indwellings of the son 
with the Father, and believers in Christ, in contradis- 
tinction to those unbelievers, who are without. Whether, 
however, I am right or wrong in attaching this meaning 
to it, it is of little importance to our present argument. 
Another, — Paul says, [1 Cor. viii. 13,] " Wherefore if 
meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while 
the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." 
Did Paul mean he would not eat meat in time, or did he 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 191 

mean that he will not eat meat in eternity ? In another 
place where Peter told our Lord he should never wash 
his feet ; [John xiii. 8,] " Peter said unto him, thou shalt 
never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash 
thee not thou hast no part with me." Another, — [Matt. 
xxi. 19,] u And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he 
came to it, and found nothing thereon but leaves only, and 
said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for 
ever." 



192 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



THURSDAY AFTERNOON. 

4 o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — I again resume this important discus- 
sion, which is certainly one of the most important ever 
discussed by man. — [The speaker was here interrupted bij 
the moderator , who observed, that as Mr. M'Calla was not 
present, he thought it would be better for Mr. K. not to pro- 
ceed till he came. Mr. K. replied that he was not aware 
that Mr. M*C. was absent. In the course of two or three 
minutes Mr. M*Calla arrived and Mr. Kneeland resumed,} 
— I had observed, my hearers, that this was an important 
discussion, that it involves one of the most important sub- 
jects ever discussed by man. Whether this discussion in 
itself, is of that importance, will depend, in a great mea- 
sure, on the talents and candour of your speakers, and up- 
on the manner in which it is conducted. 

Before I proceed to a farther consideration of this sub- 
ject. ] wish to make a few remarks upon some of the sen- 
timents expressed by my opponent when he was last up. — 
I feel myself under the necessity of observing that either 
my opponent's memory is very treacherous, or else, (what 
I should be very sorry positively to state, or seriously to 
believe is true, namely, that) he is disposed to misrepre- 
sent my arguments. 

He has stated that one of the words upon which I was 
willing to rest this discussion (if I understood him cor- 
rectly) was Hades, and that I said that the eternal tor- 
ments of Hades was never preached to the Gentiles, and 
that I would not believe it unless he could prove it was 
preached to them as well as to Jews. In this, to say the 
least of it, my opponent was incorrect. The term I used 
was not Hades but Gehenna; which, I said, was never 
used in the Old Testament to imply a place of punishment, 
but was used so in the New; yet even in the New Testa- 
ment it was not used in reference to the Gentiles, and but 
twice was it spoken of in relation to the unbelieving Jews; 
in every other instance when our Lord used it he was ad- 
dressing his disciples. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 193 

I also observed, when remarking on this term, that I 
was aware that I was not risking much in stating that I 
was willing the discussion should turn on this point; be- 
cause Paul, in ali his preaching, had not said any thing 
about the punishment of Gehenna. But, if my opponent 
can produce such a passage, I will acknowledge that he is 
better acquainted with the scriptures than I am. 

I further stated in the course of this argument, that if 
he found the Hebrew term TP 'D^)p ny rendered world with- 
out end, Isa. xlv. 17 ; or the Greek terms w rovs a.im*c, km st/, 
which are in Dan. xii. 3, and which I rendered to the ages 
and longer ; or the Greek word am^Awea^ akatalutos, Heb. 
vii. 17, rendered endless in the common version, used in 
connexion with punishment, misery, or death, that I would 
give him the argument. But this he has not done. Now, 
can I, my hearers, give you a better reason for his not 
having done so, than the one which his not having attemp- 
ted to do it, intimates, that is, because he cannot ? It is 
because no such passage exists in the sacred scriptures ! 
— He has told you that there is another term used in con- 
nexion with the happiness of the saints, which term when 
used in this connexion, I have admitted that it means an 
endless duration, hence he argues, it must of course, when 
applied to punishment, mean the same thing, and convey 
the same idea with respect to the continuance of the pun- 
ishment of the wicked. But this is by no means doing 
what he said he would do, namely, that he would produce 
as strong an expression to prove the absolute eternity of 
the punishment of the wicked as can be produced to prove 
the absolute eternity of the happiness of the saints. This 
he must do or his argument fails. 

My opponent calls upon me to tell him why I transla- 
ted, od oulami od, to the ages and further; and says that 
I have added the word and ; he, therefore, wishes to know 
what right I have to add to the scriptures. He seems to 
consider the latter *jy od as merely expletive ; but it is, 
what I consider very important, as it increases the force 
of the expression. But as he found the most important 
word connected with punishment, which he finds here in 
connexion with the happiness of the saints, he says, of 
course the punishment of the wicked must be of equal du- 
ration. But he does not seem to be sensible that his mode 
of reasoning from it, operates against himself; because if 
the words will admit of their being rendered, to the ages 
of futurity, then, of course, the word which he renders 

■25 



194 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

ages, cannot, of itself, mean the whole of futurity, or to 
an absolute eternity. In his translation he supplies the 
word of, as there is nothing in the Hebrew which answers 
to it in the words (od oulami od) which he rendered to the 
ages of futurity ; but I did not, neither do I now, object to 
it. I know that it would not militate against me: for I 
admit that this phrase, if any one in the Hebrew language 
can, expresses here an absolute eternity, and therefore is 
very properly rendered world without end. But it must 
be remembered that it is here applied to the happiness of 
the saints, which, we trust, will continue to an endless du- 
ration of time. Still, however, I contend that it by no 
means injures the sense to supply the word and, and in 
justification of my doing so, I refer you to the passage in 
Dan. xii. 5, where the words are ijri Qbyb loularn nod, and 
in the Septuagint m tou? «mmt t **/ e*t, eis tous aionas, kai eti, 
in both of which the conjunction and is found. 

He has often quoted this passage, and depends much 
upon this quotation to prove his favourite doctrine, name- 
ly, the absolutely eternal punishment of the wicked. Here, 
however, his argument fails him ; for in the second verse, 
the Hebrew word connected with contempt, is simply 
oulam, without the additional uod; and in the Greek, it is 
aionion without the additional words kai eti; that is, 
without the words, and further : and yet my oppo- 
nent contends that they both have the same meaning. — He 
asserts that the word oulam in the second verse, (I am 
now speaking of Dan. xii. 2,) means an absolute eternity, 
but if so, what does oulam uod, in the third verse, mean ? 
Or if, in the Greek, eis tous aionas, mean the same as 
aionion in the second verse, (which lie has contended that 
it does in other places,) then what do the words kai eti, 
which follow the words eis tous aionas, in the third verse, 
mean? They must mean something; and you may call it 
and further, and longer, or and future ! Call it any thing 
you please, you must call it something which conveys an 
idea of extension of time; and whatever the words kai eti 
mean, that meaning is to be added to what goes before, 
namely, to the meaning of the words eis tous aionas, which 
clearly show that they do not convey the idea of eternity, 
whatever may be said of the whole together. 

Here, then, I have produced a passage in which there is 
the conjunction and, which my opponent said I added to 
the text in Isaiah, which makes it read, to the ages and 
longer, or, to the ages and farther, or, to the future ages 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOX. 195 

df eternity / And you may have which ever rendering you 
please, as in either way it conveys the same idea ; that is, 
an idea of time heyond any expression which is connected 
with punishment. 

I was informed this morning, that in the Polyglot Bible 
in the Philadelphia Library, (which 1 have not had time to 
examine for myself,) the Latin of the Septuagint, in Dan. 
xii. 3, reads, " in secula, et longius," which is literally, 
to the ages, and longer ;* hence, if my information be cor- 
rect, I have not made this statement without some autho- 
rity. 

So, you see, my hearers, that in every point to which I 
have brought my opponent, he has failed. Has he proved 
me to be incorrect in my translation of these passages in 
any one instance ? No, he has not. — He has also indulged 
himself in much needless severity against my works. He 
tells you in so many words, " though I do not want to hurt 
my opponent's feelings, yet I will not spare his abomina- 
ble translation \" But has he shown you wherein this trans- 
lation is so abominable? Has he shown a single error in 
it? No, he has not. — He has also said a great deal about 
my Lectures, and by holding them up to ridicule, has 
endeavoured to degrade them in your estimation : but for 
this, I feel indebted to him, as he is bringing them more 
into notice than would otherwise have been done ; and I 
feel no concern about his being able to put down my works 
when he is not able to point out a single error in them. If 
the works of authors are to be put down in this way, we 
should soon have our libraries empty : for in this way, 
every useful work might be suppressed ; that is, if airy 
one who, from any motive, wished to put it down, were 
enabled to do so by merely saying it is abominable, with- 
out pointing out wherein. But to proceed : 

My opponent, it appears, has receded from the point he 
assumed yesterday : this is as it should be. The man who 
acknowledges the errors to-day which he committed yes- 
terday, does but acknowledge that he is wiser now than he 
was then. — He told you yesterday, that the rich man went 



* This was not perfectly correct. The rendering alluded to, Dan* 
xii. 3, is, Hebrew, in seculum, et perpetuum. Syriac, in seculum et in 
seculum seculorum. Arabic, ad sternitates usque, et ultra. Septuagint, 
in secula, et ultra. Vulgate, in perpetuas seternitas. The Latin version 
only, is here given. So it will be perceived that the particular version 
alluded to, is et ultra, instead of et iongius, which, when applied to time, 
amounts to the same idea, viz. farther 3 beyond, more, hereafter, &c. 



196 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

to Hell, which he understood was figuratively represented 
by the bottomless pit ; he also told you that Lazarus went 
to heaven into Abraham's bosom, and that Abraham's bo- 
som meant Christ; but finding* that Drs. Campbell and 
Wilson were against him, of which, I presume, he was not 
previously aware, he is now, as it appears, disposed to re- 
tract, and agrees with us that the word Hades, where they 
both went, means the supposed place of departed spirits, 
either good or bad. This is good, as far as he has admit- 
ted ; I hope to convince him of a little more truth before 
we have done. Lest, however, he should give up too much 
at once, he contends that they were in different apart- 
ments in the same place: but, my hearers, this cannot 
mean that they were in two apartments in heaven ; for Ave 
have no proof that any of the dead have yet gone to hea- 
ven. To show which, I quoted what Peter said concern- 
ing David ; namely, that David in his day had not yet as- 
cended into heaven. He does not say, David had not, 
when he wrote, but " David is not," that is, in Peter's 
time, "ascended into the heavens," which means that Da- 
vid had not yet ascended from Hades, the place, or state 
of the dead, where all will be kept till the resurrection. — 
But does this prove that they are in eternal misery in 
Hades ? Certainly not. Is there not a time coming when 
death and Hades (hell) will be cast into the lake of fire, 
(Rev. xx. 14,) which is the second death ; that is, the death 
of Death and Hades ! Will it then, when it is destroyed, 
be a place of torment for the wicked ? 

Some who wish to have a fuller explanation concerning 
this account (for my opponent will not have it called a 
parable) of the rich man and Lazarus, conceiving that 
there is some difficulty in it, think it incumbent on me to 
explain it. I would inform such, now, as I have before 
told them, that it has no bearing on the subject in debate. 
If they would like to attend my regular sermons they may 
hear it further explained. But I did not, on this occasion, 
come here to preach my peculiar sentiments, but to dis- 
cuss an important subject ; and to the arguments connect- 
ed with that only will I attend. 

If, therefore, after what I have stated concerning Hades, 
and which, I think, is quite sufficient, my opponent thinks 
proper to say it means a place of endless torment, all that 
lie will have to do, will be to prove that Drs. Campbell 
and Wilson as well as myself are wrong, and that he is 
right. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 197 

I do not consider myself bound to follow him in all his 
varied windings, nor to wander from the subject to answer 
every text which he produces without any argument to 
prove that his application of them is just. Lest, however, 
some should think that I want to play off in the same man- 
ner, and avoid coming to the point as he has been doing, 
I will here observe, I feel no hesitation in admitting, in 
the fullest extent, that the term Hades was used in the 
days of Christ, in the sense which those two learned gen- 
tlemen of his own persuasion, Drs. Campbell and Wilson, 
have attached to it, whether it be a parable or historical. 
— It is worthy your attention that my opponent will not 
admit it is a parable ; lie says it is not figurative, but plain 
literal and historical fact ; and yet he tells you that Abra- 
ham's bosom means Christ. Is not this a parable ? — 
Further, I told you the scene is laid upon a level, which 
is contrary to the Jewish opinion of heaven and hell ; they 
always expressed Heaven as above, and hell as beneath ; 
and although the word up is used, it expresses no more 
than it does in Gen. xiii. 14. When the Lord told Abra- 
ham to lift up his eyes and behold the land which he would 
give to him and to his seed for ever. Was this land to be 
given to Abraham, in heaven, because he was told to look 
up? 

The word which corresponds to the Greek word Hades 
is in the Hebrew scriptures, Sheol ; and it is not so much 
as once used in the whole of the Old Testament as a place 
of punishment. If it was ever used to signify a place of 
eternal torment, it obtained this meaning after the scrip- 
tures of the Old Testament were written ; and if the Jews 
attached this meaning to it afterwards, from whence did 
they obtain it ? The only answer that can be given to this, 
is, that they obtained it from the Chaldeans, among whom 
they dwelt. If, then, it was obtained in this way, was it 
by inspiration ? — If they obtained it from the heathen, 
Christ might speak a parable agreeable to their view, 
which he meant should have a moral application, without 
being responsible for the meaning which they attached to 
the words when understood in a literal sense. Christ was 
no more responsible for their erroneous views concerning 
Hades, than he was for their other erroneous opinions, as 
concerning demons, &c. or for any other perversions of 
language in his day. 

My opponent would likewise make you believe, and I 
am of opinion that he conscientiously believes it himself, 



198 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

that all the devils which our Lord cast out of people when 
upon earth, were real identical heings ; and not con- 
tent with wishing you to helieve so, he wishes to make an 
unfavourable impression on your minds against me, he- 
cause I do not believe so likewise. However, I am not 
disposed to argue this point with him : if, therefore, he 
should make any further remarks on this subject, they 
shall have all the weight in your minds which you shall 
please to give them. 

You will observe that the scene of this account, (the rich 
man and Lazarus,) is laid in Hades, and the contrast be- 
tween the righteous and the wicked, has been interpreted 
to accord with the heathenish notions which they had im- 
bibed : for they conceived the good spirits, when they de- 
parted, went to Paradise, or to Elysium, which means the 
garden of delight. When the Jews, however, used a 
phrase conveying the same idea, it was in a more familiar 
manner, in the Jewish language, and was represented by 
Abraham's bosom, which means, figuratively, a happy 
state. So with respect to the word tartarus, (hell) which is 
used, 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; it is not a Greek term, and it is only 
once used in the whole bible. 

It is very doubtful whether this was written by Peter. — 
Dr. Lardner has said it is of doubtful authority ; but as 
his name has been called in question, I will give you the 
authority of Eusebius, who existed in the 4th century ; he 
says, in reference to this epistle, " The books which are 
gainsaid, though well known unto many, are these : the 
Epistle of James ; the Epistle of Jude; the latter of Peter; 
the second and third of John ; whether they were John the 
Evangelist's, or some other's of the same name." Euseb. 
Ecclesias. Hist. Lib. iii. Cap. xxii. 

As a strong proof that one was in heaven and the other 
in hell, he tells you that there is an impassable gulf be- 
tween them ! But he has failed to prove that either of the 
places means heaven, and he has equally failed to prove 
that the other means a place of future punishment. 

I have told you they are represented as being on a level, 
not one word signifies ascending nor descending, but that 
heaven was always represented as up, and hades as down, 
" coming down from heaven," &c. but here it is said they 
were " afar off," but neither up nor down. He has not 
shown any thing to the contrary of this. — I believe it to 
be a parable, and he believes it to be historical fact. I 
have a right to my opinion, and he to his. I apply it to 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 199 

Miis world, and he to another. I am, therefore, perfectly 
willing to leave it where it is, — for this present time, at 
any rate. 

He observed, with regard to the word in Isaiah, xlv. IT, 
that the word future was added to the term to distinguish 
it from eternity past. — Who could understand it so? Why 
should an additional word he annexed to it? And if there 
be any necessity for this here, why was there not in Dan. 
xii. 2 ? The nature of the subject will always show whe- 
ther it is past or future. There are a number of places 
where this word (od) is added to oulam; and it is rather 
unfortunate for my opponent that he cannot find such a 
place connected with punishment. — Now, I consider this 
passage in Dan. xii. 2, as a very important one ; as a pa- 
rallel text to John v. 28, 29, " The hour is coming, in the 
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and 
shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the re- 
surrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the 
resurrection of damnation." 

Now, to show you that my opponent misapplied that 
passage in Daniel, he has told you that it relates to the 
general resurrection, when all the dead shall be raised, 
and when there shall be no more death ; but I shall be* 
able to show that it cannot mean any such thing. It 
means, evidently, I should say, onfy a part of those who 
sleep, &c. for, the term many is used, followed by a ge- 
nitive plural, and many certainly does not here mean all. 
If I were to say that many of you who are now present 
do not agree with my opponent, should I mean that all 
disagreed with him? Certainly not. So in this passage, 
" many of them" can never be made to mean " all of 
them." For the truth of what I say, I appeal to any He- 
brew or Greek scholar now present. I am aware that 
vokxoi with the article (oi ttokkci hoi polloi) is sometimes tan- 
tamount to the whole ; as in Rom. v. 19 — " For as by one 
man's disobedience many were made sinners ; so by the 
obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The 
word ttokkoi many is here connected with the article in both 
instances. Now, if many here means all 9 then all were 
made sinners, and all shall be made righteous. It agrees 
perfectly with that text in 1 Cor. xv. £2, " For as in 
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 
But my opponent says no! " All shall not be made alive." 
That is, I do not suppose he will object to all being made 
alive: but he will not have all made alive in Christ: he 



200 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

must have some made alive in misery ! If this be tru&, 
I wish to know what happiness it will be to them to be 
made alive again? They had better remain dead and 
know nothing. He has taken up much of your time unne- 
cessarily, in stating to you a passage about which there 
is no dispute, which, as he says, may signify time with- 
out end. This is not the strict meaning of the phrase, 
od oulami od ; yet I will not object to the fullest construc- 
tion he can possibly give it, as it is here applied to salva- 
tion — salvation in the Lord — which may be endless in its 
nature, and of course endless in duration. But, after all, 
neither of the words here used, nor all of them put together, 
necessarily imply an endless duration. The Greek word 
*un is used in the plural number as well as in the singular; 
but it never implies an absolute eternity, but only an in- 
definite period of time. Does year signify an eternal du- 
ration ? If not, then years would not signify eternal du- 
ration ; neither would ten thousand years ten thousand 
times repeated, convey that idea. It would only be a 
repetition of the first year so many times, and after that 
time had elapsed, as many more might succeed. 

4 § o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — I will commence this afternoon with a 
few remarks on a passage which has some bearing upon 
the one last read by my opponent, when speaking of the 
resurrection. You will find it in Dan. xii. 1, " And at 
that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which 
standet^ for the children of thy people : and there shall 
be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a 
nation, even to that same time : and at that time thy peo- 
ple shall he delivered, everyone that shall be found written 
in the book ;" that is, every one who has an interest in 
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think I 
showed you from the sacred volume this morning and yes- 
terday, that there is to be a difference, and a great differ- 
ence, between the righteous and the wicked ; and when 
my opponent was quoting passages concerning the resur- 
rection, lie took care not to read you this one : but they 
all allude to the resurrection, or they mean nothing; so 
also the 2d verse [of Dan. xii.] " And many of them that 
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to ever- 
lasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." 
The sleep here spoken of as certainly means the sleep of 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 2,01 

death, as by the sleep of Stephen was meant his death, 
[Acts vii. 59, 60,] "And they stoned Stephen, calling 
upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit" My 
opponent says the spirit remains in the grave. " And he 
kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not 
this sin to their charge. And when he had said this he 
fell asleep" So on the sleep to which Paul alludes, in 
1 Cor. xv. 6, he says, " But some are fallen asleep: 99 and 
18, 19, 20, " Then they also which have fallen asleep in 
Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in 
Christ, w r e are of all men the most miserable. But now is 
Christ risen from the dead, and became the first fruits of 
them that slept." But no — my opponent says it is all to 
happen in time. Again, Dan. xii. 3, " And they that be 
wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament/' &c. 
I would now ask my opponent, Where they that be wise 
are to shine " as the brightness of the firmament ?" Is 
it to be in this w^orld or eternity ? Any believer would 
say that it is to be in eternity ; for while they remain here 
they will get brighter and brighter unto the perfect day ; 
[as in Prov. iv. 18,] " But the path of the just is as the 
shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect 
day," then they are to shine as "the stars for ever and ever.*' 
Here, my friends, you have the positive declarations of 
the scriptures on the one hand, and the assertions of my 
opponent on the other, who says it is to be "to the ages of 
ages;" but I will not take up your time with such trifling. 
I am happy to see my opponent has been so well employed 
during the interval. He has got hold of the word many z 
and some other passages, I presume he has been kindly 
furnished with, since the morning, of which he has made 
a long preamble, whether to your satisfaction or not, you 
must judge. I, for my part, during the interval was glad 
to avail myself of the few moments in endeavoring to sleep. 
He has discovered and told you that the article is deficient 
in that passage in Dan. xii, 2, "And many shall awake 
&c." and therefore it cannot mean all but only a part. 

You all remember I told you he had been dealing large- 
ly in Greek translations, thinking it necessary to have ev- 
ery thing to accord with them, he lately wrote and pub- 
lished a Greek Grammer, in which he has told us, who do 
not know any thing about the Greek, that the article is of 
no use! which is in direct opposition to Middleton, who 
has written largely on the use of the Greek article. But I 
suppose he wants Middleton to set aside his own Grammar, 
and adopt his, which, if I may judge from its very learned 

26 



202 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

contents, is fit only to be burned up, for all the use it will be 
to any body. Suppose we admit, (though it is not necessary 
to admit it,) that the Seventy translated the Hebrew scrip- 
tures without using the article in Dan. xii, 2. Does it prove 
any thing in his favour? Does that alter the meaning of 
the Hebrew ; or does it prove us to be incorrect ? He re- 
ferred us to a Hebrew Grammar to prove it ; and lie ap- 
pealed, as usual, to any scholar present to decide it. As 
I before told you, let scriphire decide scripture. It is he 
that must prove that we are incorrect ; and that not by 
any one or two scholars that may be present, but by the 
scriptures. Shall one or two scholars, (aye, and if you 
please,add my learned opponent to them,)destroy the trans- 
lation of seventy inspired translators ? Or shall their trans- 
lation be set aside because my opponent finds fault with 
it, and says many parts of it are spurious ? No. Never ! 
for however his objections may operate on the minds of 
the illiterate, it will never affect those of the judicious. 
[Here Mr. K, went up stairs and spoke to the Modera- 
tors, who spoke to Mr M* C. in a low voice ; Mr. M* fJalla 
proceeded.] I stated that my opponent had written a 
Greek Grammar. I was mistaken, for I understand that 
he says he did not write it. It is, however, of but little 
consequence whether he wrote it, or got somebody else to 
write it for him ; or, perhaps he meant it was published 
without having been written at all ! [Much applauding and 
hissing.] (Some few words were lost in consequence of 
the noise; it cannot be supposed however, that they were 
such as could affect the argument, being delivered during 
such confusion.) Mr. M'C. — I hear the hissing of the vi- 
pers : it does not very materially affect me. I was pre- 
pared to hear it, knowing it to be the natural efiect of the 
doctrine of Universalism. I suppose he has regularly 
trained his followers to the work of hissing, for this occa- 
sion, if I may judge from the specimen we have had of 
their ability in this way. I know verv well the effect it 
will have in your minds, and that it will operate very 
much in my favour ; and as to its effect upon me, I assure 
you, I disregard both the good will and displeasure of all 
manner of heretics beneath the sun. [Here the speaker 
was interrupted by Mr. Morse; what he said was not heard. 
Mr. M'Calla resumed.] I would never give an opportuni- 
ty for any to applaud or hiss, where I am decently treat- 
ed nor have I here solicited any plaudits much less have 
I desired to hear his serpents' hissing. [Interrupted by 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Mr, Morse again, who observed that it was plain facts 
which were wanted in relation to the argument, and nothing 
else. Mr, M*C. resumed.] In addition to what I stated a- 
bout the Grammar, I have also been informed that Mr. 
Kneeland never was able to translate the Greek, and that 
he got some one to translate his New T Testament for him, 
but that he gave it out as his translation. And I can prove 
that he does not understand the Greek language : yet he 
professes to have given a new translation, and on which 
he prides himself as the author ; poor as it is. When per- 
sonalities begin on the one side, they are not very easily 
stopped on the other ; we will now, however, pass on to 
another subject. 

My opponant in his last speech stated that I had en- 
tertained a different idea of the meaning of the word 
Hades, to what I now do, and that I had retracted my 
former opinion. Now, my friends, I conceive it is 
an honor to retract an erroneous opinion when we are con- 
vinced it is wrong, but a dishonor to assert that an opinion 
is retracted which was never entertained. He has assert- 
ed that I formerly differed in opinion from Drs. Campbell 
and Wilson, and that I had since retracted my former o- 
pinion, and given up to him. I stated to you that he (my 
opponent) was incorrect ; that I differed from him, but that 
I agreed with them. I told you that the word Hades meant 
the place of departed spirits whether good or bad, but that 
there were two apartments in it; one apartment was un- 
derstood to mean Heaven, or the place of happiness ; and 
the other to mean the opposite to Heaven, that is, Hell, or 
a place of misery. Both these places were in what we 
understand by Hades or the invisible world. This was 
my explanation, as nearly as possible, I believe. I told 
you I agreed with the two gentlemen before mentioned, 
though I did not agree with a certain learned character 
from New England, who is so whimsical in his notions. 
I undertook to prove from the scriptures that the souls of 
good men, that is, of believers, when they leave the body, go 
to that place where Jesus is, and you will remember that 
I told you during the argument where Jesus is, that is 
Heaven to me : I want no better. My opponent since the 
forenoon has obtained so much information from some 
friendly source respecting the meaning of the Hebrew 
words iy ubyb (loulam uod) that he says they mean to the 
ages and longer ; and he said that I said they meant eter- 
nal futurity. The remarks which 1 made upon these words 
were not furnished me ; they were noted long before I came 



204 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION". 

to this place. He thinks that I am totally mistaken in 
this matter, or in the meaning of these words, and that 
the text in Isa. xlv, 17, ought also to he rendered to the 
ages and longer. Now I think I may at least lay claim 
to as much knowledge as he possesses, for although he 
politely tells you he did not object to my inserting, or that 
I may insert or supply the word of, I beg leave to inform 
him that it is not inserted nor supplied ; and I would with 
deference ask my learned opponent, whether he can give 
a correct translation of the passage without this word of? 
No, surely he cannot. Yet he says that I have no greater 
right to use the word of than he has to supply the word and I 
Now what evidence has he given you, that the and is re- 
quired in the passage ? His assertion ! nothing more. In 
another passage where the word and is used, and to which 
I suppose the same learned friend helped him that helped 
him to the other, during the interval, are the very words 
which I took months before. They are [Dan. xii. 3,] lou- 
Jam uod, which signify to the future eternity ; and well did 
I notice the difference in the words, as also between his and 
my translation of them ; and the difference between those 
phrases, in the old and new testament. This word oulam 
as far as ever I could ascertain, means eternity, that is 
past as well as future ; and the other words, loulam uod, 
mean future eternity, and when connected they signify to 
the ages of futurity. The term, atm rendered for ever means 
eternity, and the terms rendered for ever and ever 
mean only to eternity, but it is a stronger expression, or 
more emphatical. Now I wish to do perfect justice to my 
opponent's argument ; but I must say this passage has not 
relieved him a bit ; for one word governs the other. He 
says the same is meant in Isaiah xlv, 17 ; and that he has a 
right to introduce the word and; but I can tell him that 
oulami is in construction and therefore requires the word 
of to follow, and he may have it to the ages of futurity , or 
to the ages of eternity , as he pleases. 

I am very willing, my friends, to let him have the full 
benefit of all the light which in the interval between the 
fore and afternoons discussion, together with all the ad- 
vantage which he may think he may derive from endea- 
vouring to persuade you,that I create disorder in the house. 
At the same time the house appears to me to be quite quiet 
and cool. I hear of no damage done ; niether do I hear 
of any bones being broken. Every thing appears to me 
to be very still, and on my own part I do not require much 
from them. I only wish to be decently treated so long as I 



THEOLOGICAL DISCTJSSI05T. £05 

remain as a visiter amongst you. If my opponent were to 
visit my country I should be very sorry to see him ill-trea- 
fed : besides I did not force myself upon you, I was in- 
vited to this house. Now if any of you were invited to 
my house, we should know how to treat you. I do not 
now wish to hurt your feelings by making unnecessary re- 
flections upon you, nor do I feel any thing unpleasant to- 
wards you, nor can I charge myself with having done any 
thing to hurt your feelings. I cannot attach any guilt to 
what I have seid or done; and where there is no sin there 
is no cause to be ashamed. It is true when we closed in 
the forenoon I felt some unpleasant feelings arising from 
some observations which had been dropped by my oppo- 
nent, but they have now nearly all vanished. But to pro- 
ceed : 

All the passages in the scriptures in which are contain- 
ed the phrases that are rendered for ever and ever, and 
used in an unlimited sense, are sixty : seventeen of which 
refer to the attributes of God, twenty-one to the kingdom 
of Jesus Christ, nine to the duration of the happiness of 
the saints, and several others which are used in an unde- 
termined sense, which make up in number, sixty : and be- 
sides these sixty, there are six others which relate to the 
punishment of the wicked in an unlimited sense. Now, I 
wish you to notice this, that these sixty passages with the 
other six, make the whole number of times this expression 
is used in any sense, sixty-six. I told you before, by mis- 
take, that it was sixty-one, or sixty-two, I do not now re- 
member which ; but sixty-six is the right number. In six- 
ty of these, the term has an unlimited signification. Now 
the sixty which relate to God, to the eternity of Christ's 
kingdom, to the happiness of the saints, &c. my opponent 
admits have, or may have an unlimited signification ; but 
the remaining six he objects to receive in this sense, be- 
cause they are applied to the punishment of the wicked, 
and he knows it would militate against his doctrine. Well 
then, as he says they are limited in their signification, 
and I say they are unlimited, how shall we ascertain their 
true meaning ? Not by appealing to scholars who may be 
now living, nor by examining books which have been writ- 
ten in our day, but by examining the same author who 
uses them, and ascertaining how he uses them in other 
places when not applied to the punishment of the wicked, 
and by examining contemporary authors, and others who 
wrote about the time that this author used the terms to 
convey the same idea. This has been done, and the re- 



2,06 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 

suit is, that they all agree hi using it to convey the idea 
of an absolute eternity. 

It is very different, however, with regard to the word 
aion ; it is used in thirty-one passages in connexion with 
temporal things, but there is not one passage where eis 
tons aionas, ton aionon, rendered for ever arid ever, is so 
used 5 that is, to express things of temporal duration. Yet 
there are six exceptions to its being received in its unlimi- 
ted sense according to my opponent : because, were he to 
admit these to signify eternity, be knows he would con- 
demn the sinner to an eternal state of punishment, which 
is contrary to his doctrine. 

We shall examine the meaning of the adjective aionion, 
and we will find that it is used to represent eternity past, 
present, and to come. It is applied to things which are 
unseen and eternal, in contradistinction to things which 
are seen and are temporal, as 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18, " For our 
light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us 
a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory ; while 
we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things 
which are not seen : for the things which are seen are tem- 
poral ; but the things which are not seen are eternal." — 
It is used in connexion with the attributes of God, to show 
that his power is everlasting : it is used also in connexion 
with the spirit to show that it is eternal, as Heb. ix. 14, 
" How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through 
the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 
purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living 
God V 9 Though some suppose this is only temporal. In 
fixe places it is used to imply the eternity of Christ's king- 
dom. In three of these places it is used to express eter- 
nity past, as in Rom. xvi. 25, " Now to him that is of 
power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the 
preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation 
of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world be- 
gan." But my opponent has rendered it, or had it ren- 
dered in his translation, " which was kept secret in for- 
mer ages," Now you will take notice that he here trans- 
lates the adjective aionon, former, and the noun */>ewte chro- 
nois, he translates ages. This, I must acknowledge, is a 
very convenient way of getting rid of its true meaning. — 
There is another passage where he gives us a similar trans- 
lation, which answers his purpose just as well, as 2 Tim. 
i. 9, " Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy 
calling, not according to our works, but according to his 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. £07 

own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Je- 
sus before the world began." He has it in his translation, 
H which was bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before the 
aionian times." Now here is the same phrase used in the 
original, and yet in one place he has rendered it former 
ages, because it suits his convenience better, and in ano- 
ther place he retains the adjective, aionian, and only ren- 
ders the noun (chronon) times. Thus, then, according to 
my opponent's method of rendering it, that passage in 
Paul's epistle to Titus, (ii. 2,) will read " In hope of 
aionian life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before 
the aionion times." In this, my opponent's translation 
agrees with that of Mr. Scarlett, who says, that in the 
passage in Rom. xvi. 25, the words xpwois atawts should have 
been rendered seonian times, the same as he has it in Tim. 
i. 9, and Titus i. 2. Hence, he would make out that there 
was time before the seonian times, and what could that be 
but an absolute eternity? This term is thus used by Gre- 
gory and others, and also by an eminent lexicographer of 
our own time, who has rendered the phrase from the eter- 
nities : and Scapulet renders it, before all eternity : but to 
let you know that the aionion times did not mean a less n 
period of time than all eternity, he informs you 



5 o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — The remarks which my opponent has 
made in relation to a supposed Greek Grammar, and the 
contempt which he has attempted to throw upon it, are not 
at all applicable to any work of mine, for, as I informed 
the Moderators at the time, for his information, I have 
published no Greek Grammar, neither have I written any. 
— I presume he alluded to Farkhursfs Greek Grammar, 
a brief sketch of which I have annexed to my Greek and 
English New Testament, not one word of which is my 
own, nor, did I ever endeavour to make it appear that it 
was : I gave it as it is, merely an abstract from Parkhurst. 
— My sole object in making this abstract, was to enable 
those who do not understand Greek, but who only under- 
stand English, to compare the original Greek with my 
translation of it into English : the great crime, therefore, 
of which I have been guilty, if it be one, is, not that I have 
palmed upon the world an imperfect Grammar of the lan- 
guage, but that I have made an abstract from Parkhurst 



208 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

and given it to the world as such ; and he himself acknow- 
ledges, and has referred to this author as a standard. — 
I have given those parts, only, which are necessary to be 
committed to memory, and those, in the very words of the 
grammar. 

I was surprised to hear my opponent state to you, that 
in my argument I had made references to him of a perso- 
nal nature, as it is impossible for me to imagine what I 
can have said which warrants my opponent in the suppo- 
sition that I have used any personalities. If, however, I 
have, yet with which I cannot charge myself, I now as- 
sure you, my hearers, and him, that I meant no such thing; 
and I am not aware that any thing of the kind has escap- 
ed my lips. 

As my opponent may construe what I am going to say 
into personalities, I feel the more particularly sorry that 
I am under the necessity of stating to you, that, it appears 
to me, he is determined not to meet me on any one point 
on which this discussion might be decided. How much 
nearer has he come to the subject in dispute during the last 
half hour ? Not at all ! 

He has made some objections to our difference as to the 
meaning of certain words being referred to the decision 
of any scholar present; but there was no occasion for 
these objections, nor for his criticisms. 

I did not mean that our judges were to decide the point 
at issue, by the meaning of a Hebrew or Greek word ; I 
do not believe such an important doctrine depends on ver- 
bal criticisms ; but I appealed to them to determine whe- 
ther the words in dispute would not bear the construction 
which T put upon them. Again, what good has it done 
us, my hearers, or, of what use is it to you to have your 
time so improperly and unprofitably taken up, as it has 
been by my opponant, in ridiculing me and my work ? My 
translation is before the public, for public examination, 
and according to its merits so will it either stand or fall. 
That there are no errors in it, I have not sufficient pre- 
sumption to suppose ; but I have earnestly solicited the 
learned to point them out,in the same way as they may have 
been made ; and that you may know how far my opponent 
is justifiable in saying that the work is not even known to 
many, I will tell you as briefly as possible, what I have 
done to endeavour to have it correct, and to give it pub* 
licity. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. .20.9 

I issued the Greek and English Testament in numbers, 
and had two hundred and fifty additional copies of the first 
number struck off, one of which 1 sent to the president of 
every college and university in the United States. I al- 
so sent them to several of the clergy of this city, and de- 
posited them in book-stores w here they might he seen, re- 
questing respectfully that the errors of the translation, if 
there were any of importance, might he pointed out ; as also 
to suggest any improvement that might he thought proper : 
the work was published in thirteen numbers, and upon the 
cover of each number, was an address to the clergy of this 
City particularly, earnestly requesting that they would 
examine the work, and, if they detected any errors, that 
they would point them out to me, that I might be enabled* 
with their assistance, to give to the public a faithful trans- 
lation, but, to this period, not one solitary objection has 
been made to the translation until now. In your hearing, 
my opponent has declared it to be replete with errors and 
absurdities; but, has he proved it incorrect ? He has said 
so, but that will not make it so! In his criticisms on it, as 
in his attempt to prove his doctrine, he contents himself 
with bare assertions, and thinks you will take all for 
granted that he says ; therefore he does not attempt any 
argument to prove its correctness. I am obliged to him. 
however, for making the translation more publicly known 
than it would have been had he said nothing about it. — 
His continually avoiding to bring forward the strong ar- 
guments, which he says he has, in proof of his doctrine, 
induces me to believe, that he has none to bring forth, or 
that it is his intention not to bring this discussion to any 
point on which it might finally be decided, notwithstanding 
I have so repeatedly urged and entreated him to do so; 
I hold a paper in my hand which was handed to me during 
the interval, by a person whose name I do not wish to 
mention, and with the permission of the board of Modera-, 
tors, I will read it. — 

[Interruption by Mr. Kennedy who said : ** That paper 
has been put into our hands, and we think it inexpedient to 
read it. 99 ) 

Some person below.— "Goon with the argument 9 * 

Mr M'Calla. — " I wish tjou to read it" 

Mr. Kneeland. — « I do not wish to read it, if the Modem? 
tors object 99 [ Leave was then given by them to read it.] 

Mr. Kneeland.—" I shall omit namesJ 9 -~ 

2T 



210 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

(COPY.) "June 15th 1824. 

" Last evening, I was told by a son of that Mr. 

M'Calla said to his father and others present, "that he 
would not come to the point on the subject in question, 
that he intended to plague him (Mr. Kneeland) by play- 
ing off." 

[From the gallery. — "give the names." 

Mr. Kneeland. — I do not wish to give the names, as it 
may involve the parties in trouble, I only wish to know 
from Mr. M'Calla if there be any foundation for its con- 
tents. 

( Give the names.) 

Mr. Kneeland. — I have told you my reasons for not 
wishing to mention names, but lest it should be supposed 
I cannot, if it be the wish, I will comply. 

Mr. M'Calla. — " The names sir, certainly." 

Mr. Kneeland read : — Copy, "June 15th, 1824. Last 
evening I was told bv a son of the Rev'd. Mr. Potts, that 
Mr. M'Calla said to his father, and others present, " that 
he would not come to the point on the subject in question ; 
that he intended to plague him (Mr. Kneeland) by play- 
ing off." (Signed.) HENRY STARR. 

[Here some fellow from the gallery called out, " It's a 
lie/ 99 ] 

Mr. M'Calla. — "lean easily refute it by Mr. Potts 
himself. 9 ' 

Mr. Kneeland to the audience. — My opponent says he 
can refute it by Mr. Potts himself, and I sincerely hope 
that he will be able to do so, particularly, as he has denied 
it. It affords me pleasure to find that it is not true, and 
I sincerely hope that he will make his denial good, for one 
inducement with me to bring it forward was, I should have 
been sorry to remain under the impression till to-morrow 
morning. But to resume the subject once more : — 

My opponent observed on that passage in Dan. xii. 2, 
That the same term which is there used to imply the eter- 
nity of the happiness of the saints, is used in connexion 
with the punishment of the wicked, and, as I have admit- 
ted that the happiness of the saints will be of never ending 
continuance, of course, the suffering of the wicked must be 
so ; consequently it must necessarily, according to my 
own acknowledgment, refer to a future state beyond this 
present world. Here my opponent and I are again at is- 
sue. While I am willing to admit that the term mmm, 
rendered everlasting may signify an eternal duration when 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 211 

applied to the future happiness of the saints, it is because- 
their happiness will be collateral with their existence, and 
therefore endless in its nature, they being destined to 
be raised immortal ; but, I will not admit that it implies 
this when used in connection with the wicked, unless my 
opponent can first prove, that they will be raised wicked 
in an immortal state, neither am I willing to admit that 
this passage has any reference to an immortal state at all; 
and if you will take the pains to refer to the verse pro- 
ceeding it, you will find that the event alluded to was to 
take place in time, and not in eternity. It says, *< And 
there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since 
there was a nation even to that same time : and at that 
time, thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall 
be found written in the book." Now let us turn to Matt, 
xxiv, where our Lord, speaking of the horrible destruction 
which was coming upon Jerusalem, which in the 15th 
verse, refers to this very prophecy of Daniel, and then, 
having told his disciples, how they might escape it, he says 
in the 21st verse, " For then shall be great tribulation, 
such as was not from the beginning of the world to this 
time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days had been 
shortened, there should nojlesh be saved." Now to know 
when many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, are 
to awake &c. we have only to ascertain when this time 
of trouble was to be, as spoken of by Daniel, (xii, i.) and 
to ascertain this, we have only to refer to the passage 
just read, where our Saviour, speaking of the judgment 
then coming upon the Jews, refers to this very prophecy 
of Daniel, and to this very time of trouble, spoken of by 
him ; for, he says to his disciples, " When ye, therefore, 
shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel 
the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let 
him understand) then let them which be in Judea, flee into 
the mountains. Let him which is on the house-top not 
come down to take any thing out of his house : Neither 
let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 
And wo unto them that are with child, and to them that 
give suck in those days ! But pray ye that your flight be 
not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day : For then 
shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the be- 
ginning of the world to this time ; no, nor ever shall be. 
And except those days should be shortened, there should no 
flesh be saved." Now my hearers, I wish you to observe, 
particularly, while we compare these passages, on one of 



21$ THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

which my opponent lays so much stress. Our Lord says* 
there shall be a time of tribulation such as there never 
was 9 no, nor ever shale be ; and Daniel says, " There 
shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there 
was a nation, to that time" &c. and Jesus Christ, speak- 
ing on that same subject, not only confirms what the 
prophet said in relation to that prophecy, but adds, no 
nor ever shall be / Now, if Daniel was speaking of a great 
trouble, such as never was, no matter how great a one 
might be afterwards, and Jesus Christ spoke of a great 
trouble, or tribulation, such as never was nor ever should 
be, is it not certain that they refer to the same trouble ? 
and is is not evident, that both the prophet and our Lord 
were speaking of the same period ? Then, if this is the 
period to which they both allude, is it not the period when 
many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall a- 
wake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt ?" Now, will any one attempt to say, 
that this is not to take place here in this world ? Are there 
any who will say these troubles of which our Saviour and 
the prophet spoke are to happen in another world ? If so, 
I ask, will it be necessary for our Lord's disciples, or the 
saints, to flee to the mountains in another world ? will 
there be any winter there? or will there he any females 
in the circumstances here mentioned ? No, my hearers ! 
you all know that there will not ! Now to convince you 
that the time of which they prophesied has come, and is- 
past, and that it referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
he says it shall take place in the life time of some of those 
who were then present when Jesus Christ was addressing 
them ; for he says in the 34th verse of the same chapter, 
* Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, 
till all these things be fulfilled." It then necessarily fol- 
lows, that some of those whom he addressed are yet living, 
or else, these troubles took place in their time, when our 
Lord said they should. 

We will now return again to the word Hades, in the 
parable of the rich man and Lazarus. My opponent has 
informed you, that be understands Abraham's bosom to be 
that apartment of the invisible world which he calls Hea- 
ven, where Lazarus was, and that the rich man was in 
that apartment of the same invisible world, which he calls 
Hell. Now you will ohserve, that my opponent admits 
that they were in the same place, but in different apart- 
ments, yet these apartments were not so far apart but 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 21 £ 

that they could converse with perfect freedom ; they were 
not prevented from conversing with each other, notwith- 
standing the distance, nor the impassable gulph which 
was between them ! You must have observed, also, that he 
admitted this word Hades, here rendered Hell, means the 
place of departed spirits; now where does the scriptures 
say that the spirit of man goes, when it departs from 
this body? You will find in Eccles. xii, 7, ■" Then shall 
the dust return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit 
shall return unto God who gave it." This is what I be- 
lieve, what the scriptures tell me, and yet, my opponent 
has told you, that I believe the spirit remains in the grave 
with the body. Did you hear me say so ? Did my oppo- 
nent? No, he did not ! and he had better wait, as I told 
him before, until he has my belief from my own lips, and 
not make a belief for me ; he will then not be so likely to 
make mistakes as he has in respect to my belief, as well 
as with respect to the imaginary Greek Grammar, which 
he has declared I published, and with which he is so well 
acquainted that he can even tell you its contents. 

Now, my hearers, I believe, so far from the spirit's re- 
maining with the body, that it returns to the God who 
gave it ; and I ask you, can it go to a better place ? No : 
for, concerning that Being who breathed into man the 
breath of life, who ushered me into existence, in time, and 
provided for my every necessity, I have no fear that he 
will injure me in eternity! The observation which my op- 
ponent made, that " where Jesus Christ is, that is my hea- 
ven," is perfectly consonant with my feelings and my be- 
lief; were I to express it myself, I would express it in the 
same words ; therefore I have no objection to unite with 
him in wishing to be in so desirable a place. 

I would now ask what it is to be made alive in Christ 
Jesus : can it be any thing short of heaven ? We are told 
that all who diei?i Adam, will be made alive in Christ. 1 
Cor. xv. 22, " For as in Adam all die, even so in 
christ shall all be made alive." Now if my opponent 
will show me a being present that will not die, according 
to the natural death of Adam, I will show him one who 
will not be made alive in Christ, and, if I am among the 
number allotted to die the death of Adam, I know from this 
testimony that I shall be made alive in Christ; and if to 
be in Christ is heaven to my antagonist, to be in Christ is 
heaven tome; and I hope and believe that all my hearers 
will eventually be there as well as my opponent and myself. 



214 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

It must be remembered, however, that in the parable, as 
I call it, of the rich man and Lazarus, there is nothing 
said about the spirit of either ; but the whole account is of 
the body. The rich man lifted up his eyes, and saw Abra- 
ham, not the spirit of Abraham, afar oft' — requested that 
Lazarus might dip his finger in water, and cool his tongue, 
&c. but whoever read of the eyes, finger, and tongue of the 
spirit I All this shows it to be a parable, and not histori- 
cal fact, as my opponent supposes. And although neither 
Abraham, Lazarus, nor the rich man could pass the gulf, 
yet it does not follow but that God, in his own time, can 
remove it out of the way : for " his arm is not shortened 
that he cannot save;" he is declared to be a "just God 
and a Saviour." 

I will not pretend to follow my opponent in all his 
Greek texts, but will, as much as possible, confine myself 
to the translation, conceiving that the major part of my 
audience do not understand Greek, and to them, quoting 
Greek, is a great loss of time. 

Concerning the greater part of what my opponent read, 
there is no dispute ; reading it, therefore, was only a use- 
less lengthening out of the discussion: but it does not ne- 
cessarily follow, because he can find the term *um:v render- 
ed eternal, used more frequently in connexion with God, 
than it is in connexion with punishment, that, therefore, 
the punishment of the wicked must be as eternal as the ex- 
istence of God ; for that would prove God not eternal, as 
in the Old Testament it is used more frequently in relation 
to things of a temporal nature than eternal. The reason 
why it implies eternity, when applied to the existence of 
God, is, because his nature is eternal, but not so with re- 
spect to punishment, it had a commencement and it will 
have an end ; it is the nature of tlte subject which must al- 
ways qualify the meaning of the word. He has told you the 
number of times the word occurs in the Old and New Tes- 
taments, and as I have a few minutes left, all that need be 
said on this subject may be summed up in a few words, 
yet I will make use of them in endeavouring to give you 
as much light on this subject as possible. 

There are one hundred and ninety-nine passages in the 
Greek Testament where the term aw and mwm is used 
The substantive aim aion occurs one hundred and twenty- 
eight times ; that is to say, it occurs sixty-six times in the 
singular, and sixty-two in the plural number. In our com- 
mon version, it is rendered seventy -two times ever, thirty-six 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 215 

times world, seven times never, three times evermore, twice 
eternal, twice worlds, twice ages, once course, once world 
without end, and twice it is passed over without any word 
affixed as a translation of it. The word aionion is an ad- 
jective, and comes from the substantive axon. Now it is 
evident, that an adjective can never mean more than the 
substantive from which it comes; thus, whiteness does not 
signify more than white, blackness than black, greatness 
than great, goodness than good, &c. — This word aionion 
occurs as an adjective, seventy-one times in the New Tes- 
tament, and in the common version, it is rendered once 
ever, forty -two times eternal, three times world, and twen- 
ty-five times everlasting. It expresses no fixed period of du- 
ration, but is sometimes used to express a shorter, and at 
other times, a longer period, according to the nature of that 
to which it is attached. 

As this is an important subject, I wished to give you 
this piece of information, that it may be impressed upon 
your minds that the translators of the common version 
have rendered each original word in so many different 
ways, according to their ideas of its meaning, but that the 
word is but one in the original. 

I have here stated a few simple facts, for it is probable, 
from present appearances, that this discussion will be 
closed without coming to any final point of decision ; it 
must, at any rate, turn upon something else than what my 
opponent has adduced. It never will be decided if it is on- 
ly to be done by verbal criticisms. Knowing this before, 
I have proposed several methods to bring my opponent to 
some final point : I have called upon him to show the law 
ef God which requires the eternal punishment of the sin- 
ner; — this he has not done. I have called upon him to 
produce a passage where the same expression, world 
without end, that is used in relation to the happiness 
of the saints, is used in connexion with sin, misery, or 
death; — this he has not done. I have called upon him to 
show that the apostles preached the doctrine of Hell tor- 
ments to any, either Jew or Gentile ; — this he has also 
failed to do ! 

With respect to the expression which points out the con- 
tinuance of the happiness of the saints, though he acknow* 
ledges he cannot find it used in connexion with sin, mise- 
ry or death, yet he says there are other terms equivalent 
to it, a sufficient number of which, he says, he has produc- 
ed to satisfy the minds of all believers j that is* I suppose^ 



216 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

believers in his doctrine: but if he wishes to prove his doc- 
trine true, he should produce a passage so strong, that 
even those who now disbelieve may be also satisfied of its 
truth. I must do him the justice, however, to say that I 
am strongly of opinion he believes himself to be correct. 
I believe him to be sincere and honest in his faith : but his 
honesty cannot make his doctrine true, if it is not so, and 
ve want proof of its being so: were that the case, it would 
be both true and false at the same time ; for he believes it 
true, and I candidly believe otherwise ; but our believing 
a thing true does not constitute it so : — bare assertions are 
not the "law and the testimony;" we must, therefore, in 
this important discussion, set them down for nothing. 

Now, you all know, my hearers, I have been urging him 
to meet me on any one of the abo\ e points, or upon any other 
equally fair point that he himself might propose, to enable 
us to bring this debate to a close ; but instead of meeting 
me, what does he do ? Gives passage after passage, with- 
out any argument or explanation, and I will venture to 
say, that ninety-nine hundredths of those who are present, 
do not understand what he has attempted to prove by those 
passages. But he must go on in his own course ; he must 
go on reading to you from his little paper book, and when 
he will get through it I do not know. 

He has told you that I have obtained a great deal of in- 
formation from some one, on the Hebrew, during the in- 
terval of our discussion. — I have told you the information 
that I received, viz. that there is a bible in the Philadelphia 
Library which contains the words " in secula, et longius,'* 
&c. as the Latin version of the Septragint; but I had not 
time to examine it. In every other respect all the light I 
brought with me this afternoon, I had with me this morn- 
ing. I had hoped to have obtained some from my oppo- 
nent, but he seems disposed to keep all he has to himself; 
not content with this, he takes every advantage he can to 
prejudice the audience against me and my Indians, as he 
terms them ; [a laugh] but I am willing to let all go in his 
favour that he can get, for I believe he needs it, and I do 
not wish to take any advantage of him. And I once more 
assure you, my hearers, that I should be very happy to be- 
lieve that Mr. Starr has been misinformed, as there will be 
the greater probability of this discussion's being brought 
to a speedy close, if he be really determined to come to 
the point. I hope, therefore, my opponent will not fail to 
prove the contents of the note which I have read not to be 
true. If he fail to do this, what will be your decision ? 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 217 



5§ o'clock. 

Mr. JWCalla. — I have on my minutes a memorandum 
of some notes which I also have received. My opponent 
has made all he could of a note which he has received : but 
I have received three notes to his one ; of which I shall 
only notice one which bears the signature, L. A. and I 
here publicly acknowledge his kindness, and thank hi;n, 
and if he be present, I beg him to accept the assu- 
rance of my esteem for him ; and I ask his prayers, as 
well as the prayers of all sincere believers. As to the 
other two writers, I can assure them I feel no resentment 
towards them for the manner in which their notes were 
written ; but on the contrary, I sincerely hope, whoever 
they are, that they may be finally saved through the pre- 
cious blood of the cross, and that they will not rest upon 
the faise and delusive hope of the wicked, but will anxious- 
ly seek after that faith, the reward of which is a certain 
crown of glory that fadeth not away. But to the subject. 

Much has been said about the history of the rich man 
and Lazarus, which my opponent continues to call a para- 
ble. He, and some others with him, call it a parable, and 
we call it a history : he has a right to his own opinion, 
and I to mine : but what evidence has he given you that 
it is a parable? Has he given you any better evidence of 
it, than he has on any other point in proof of his doctrine? 
Now, on the fact of its being a faithful narration of an oc- 
currence that actually existed at the time when it was told 
and yet exists, I ask, what better evidence can be offered 
than that it is called so? Our Lord has related it as a 
plain historical fact, and you will observe that whenever 
he relates a parable, he always calls it a parable, or uses 
words that indicate as much ; therefore, this is no more a 
parable than the historical account of Adam and Eve is a 
parable ; nor are we at liberty to call it so, though those 
who do not believe the inspiration of the scriptures 
should do so. On the contrary, God has given by his ser- 
vant Moses, an historical account of his Creation, and of 
the creation of our first parents, Adam and Eve; and al- 
though he has not expressly called it a history, yet we are 
bound to believe it such ; for if it had been intended by him 
that we should have received it as a parable, he would 
have called it such. — But admitting that it is a parable, 
it does not help my opponent any that I can perceive $ for 

28 



£18 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

every parable has a meaning, and the meaning of this in 
Luke is obvious that the rich man was in torment, and 
Lazarus in glory. 

He has told you that there is no passage to be found in 
the scriptures where the word 7ltffc# sheol is used to sig- 
nify a place of future punishment ; but I did not under- 
stand that he told us which of the books he meant, whe- 
ther it was the Old Testament, in Hebrew, or the New 
Testament, in Greek, or the Septuagint, which is the 
Greek version of the Old ,• but you will recollect that the 
account is in the New Testament, in Greek, and that it 
was the meaning of the Greek word Hades, and not of the 
Hebrew word Sheol that we were disputing. 

I have a Greek Testament with me, and I find that in 
the translation, it should read, " And the rich man died 
and was buried ; and in the Hades he lifted up his eyes, be- 
ing in torments." Now, my opponent insinuated that the 
narration had no reference to a state beyond the grave, 
but that it related to events which occurred, or were to 
occur in this life. I suppose it is my opponent's Greek 
learning that teaches him this ; but we plain, common rea- 
ders, know what the account says, that the rich man died 
and was buried ; it also says that Lazarus died, but we 
have no account whether he was buried or not, nor is it of 
any importance; we know that it is said he was enjoying his 
good things in Abraham's bosom, or heaven, and the other 
enduring torments in hell. The quibble which my oppo- 
nent made about the distance between them, being so tri- 
fling that they were enabled to speak to each other, al- 
though it may suit him, and others that are present, yet I 
am very well satisfied that it will not suit the half of those 
to whom I am now speaking, nor any of the intelligent of 
this assembly. — How blindly do men of natural minds 
view spiritual things ! Who does not know that departed 
spirits are not limited in knowledge, and sight, and speech, 
as they are while confined within their bodies? Nor do all 
see the same distance while in the body ; for some have 
only carnal minds which cannot see the hidden things 
of God. Whereas, the spiritual mind sees far be- 
yond the things of time and sense, and looks forward to 
the time when all temporal things shall pass away. It is 
only the unregenerated mind that thinks spirits see as bo- 
dies do, and no further; when we know that the angels in 
heaven hold converse with the devils in hell ; but who 
would say from this that they inhabit the same place, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. $l9 

enjoy the same happiness, or endure the same degree of 
torment ? The scriptures say, that in the day of judgment 
the devil and his worshippers shall be punished in the pre- 
sence of the holy angels ; as, Rev. xiv. 10, " And he shall 
be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of 
the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." Yes, 
my friends, they not only see but hear them ; not be- 
cause they are so near ; but the difference between their 
means of communication by speech, is as different as a 
spiritual is from a bodily state. Now, this I do not offer 
to your consideration of myself ; it is not my bare asser- 
tion, as my opponent would have you believe all I advance 
is, but I have given you scripture testimony for the truth 
of what I have said, which will have its full weight with 
those who believe it to be inspired. 

My opponent says that the rich man and those of whom 
he was begging a drop of water to cool his parched tongue 
were near to each other. Does scripture say so ? No : but 
that he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off; then 
why not as far off as heaven is above hell ? 

God's ways are as high above our ways as heaven is 
above hell. But the unregenerate mind wishes to bring 
all down to one common level, to the basis of their own 
shallow reasoning, and cannot comprehend the majesty of 
that Being who created them. But we will no longer pol- 
lute this sacred subject by our unhallowed and futile at- 
tempts to know him as he is : sufficient is it for us to know 
and believe what he has been graciously pleased to reveal 
to us by his Son, Jesus Christ. 

My opponent has told you, and in his indirect manner, 
wishes you to understand, by a short passage which he 
read from his Lectures, I believe, that he has given you 
all the light that can be given you, and that my disserta- 
tion, which I had previously given upon the meaning of the 
Greek terms, was useless. Well, what has he given you 
instead of it ? He tells you that «*»v is translated so many 
times world, and in other places it is translated so many 
times in some other way. He further wishes to make it 
appear that his translation stands high in the literary 
world ; and he has told you that he sent a copy of the first 
number to every college and university, and particularly 
to the clergy of this city, requesting them to point out er- 
rors, and yet to this day it remains unanswered ; — none 
of them have found any fault with it. This, no doubt, 
made a great impression on your minds in favour of its 



220 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

correctness : but, my friends, he did not tell you the true 
reason of their silence : he neglected to tell you that he re- 
quested they would pay the postage ; and they naturally 
conceived if they took the trouble to point out his errors, 
he might at least pay postage/ But perhaps he suspected 
the amount of postage might exceed the profit of the work. 
Now, this I tell you in bumble sincerity, arising from a 
conviction of its truth, and not from any malice nor unplea- 
sant feelings that I entertain towards my opponent. But the 
clergy, and particularly those to whom he sent the work, 
knew so much, and saw so much of the tendency of this 
learned work, that they would not have sent him any re- 
marks upon it though he would have given them a fee for 
doing so, much less could it be expected that they would 
do so when they were saddled with the postage I This was 
a pretty effectual way of shutting the door against its er- 
rors being pointed out. It might well remain unanswer- 
ed ! Besides, they knew very well, that by treating it with 
the silent contempt it merited, that eventually it must pe- 
rish. I have been told by some that I ought to treat it in 
the same manner, and not take any notice of it, and I am 
sorry that my opponent has rendered it necessary for me 
to do so. We will now, however, pass on to the subject 
before us. 

In my concluding remarks, which I shall now submit to 
you in a little order, I observed that *pwots aiw/w signified 
everiasting times, I told you, that by putting chronois to 
aioniois, it would then signify time before alt time. He has 
told you that this will not prove an absolute eternity ; but 
in this he did not say what is true ; for chronois means 
time, and everlasting time must mean eternity. We may 
say before eternity ; and I gave you the opinion of one of 
the most eminent lexicographers in the world in support 
of it. He makes it out according to his view of the mean- 
ing of the term, to signify before the eternities : but my op- 
ponent contends that it does not imply eternity at all. — 
The learned Scapulet says, before all eternity I 

Now, 1 can say the same of heaven. Does not the re- 
sidence of God mean the highest heaven \ and sometimes 
heaven is put figuratively to imply the Supreme Being 
himself, and this is called the first heaven, and the Son is 
sometimes used figurative as the second heaven, or his re- 
silience is there, which is the same in reality as saying it 
is the residence of God ; and the angels have for their re- 
sidence, the third heaven. Now Paul says that Christ is 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 221 

exalted far above all heavens, Eph. iv. 10, Now, does 
Paul mean that he will be exalted above God? Certainly 
not : for he says in the 6th verse that the Father is above 
all ; but he uses it as for ever and ever is used, to show 
that it is more emphatical than simply for ever. The same 
may be said of */»»*?, k*i m aionas kai eti 9 upon which my 
opponent made some remarks, to display his great Greek 
learning, I suppose, (I beg pardon, I forgot myself ; I will, 
however, be more circumspect, and endeavour to remem- 
ber the kind admonition of my friend, L. A.) — In Rev. 
xiv. 11, it says, « And the smoke of their torment (that is, 
of those who are to be punished in the presence of the holy 
angels and in the presence of the Lamb) ascendeth up (eh 
aionas aionon) for ever and ever; 99 and in xx. 10, "And 
the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire 
and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, 
and shall be tormented day and night (eis tons aionas ton 
aionon) for ever and ever, 99 

From the notes on these two passages in his translation 
of the Greek testament, my opponent would have you un- 
derstand that the torment represented there has reference 
only to things of this world. He has, however, admitted 
that the smoke of their torment ascends up to the ages of 
ages ; for he says, "that it is not here asserted that the 
torment continues, but that the smoke of it ascends to the 
ages of ages." Thus while he pretends to tell you, that as 
it is used in this connexion it refers only to time, he admits 
that its effect will be visible in eternity. He therefore 
admits the principle, but denies our construction of it, and 
says that it does not extend to an absolute eternity. It 
can be proved, however, that the terms eis ton aionos ton 
aionon rendered world without end [Eph. iii. 21.] is the 
same expression as the latter, [Rev. xx, 10;] and that 
which I told you would bear to be rendered to the eternity 
of futurity, is sometimes rendered for ever and ever in 
the common version, to make it more emphatical ; but 
this he is not willing to admit. I prefer always pro- 
ving scripture by scripture ; but we will leave scriptural 
things and let plain sense and plain language determine. 
I then ask can the terms which may be rendered to the 
eternities of futurity, and which are rendered by my oppo- 
nent to the ages of ages, mean a shorter time than futuri- 
ty ? When the Bishops were assembled together at the 
council of Nice and they formed what is called the Nicene 
creed ; does the expression which they there use, " God 



222 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

of Gods," mean any thing less than God ? No. But they 
*se it to render it more emphatical. It is probable that 
my opponent will endeavour to make you believe, that 
those who were at the council of Nice, did not believe that 
our Lord Jesus Christ was God ; in the same manner as 
he has endeavoured to make you believe that eis tons aionas 
ton aionon, which he renders to the ages oj ages, does not mean 
an absolute eternity. He has given you an explanation of 
the Greek noun am axon, because I had not given you a 
sufficient explanation of it. I did all that I intended, I 
only wished to offer a remark or two on its various mean- 
ings ; but I wish to go deeper into the subject than my 
opponent has in his lectures ; we must come to the Bible 
for the meaning of a word, and not take a schoolboy's trans- 
lation, but examine for ourselves and see how it is used 
in the scriptures. He tells you that it should always be 
rendered age, — that is the true meaning of the word, and 
there is no light to be dra 'vn from the common version, 
because it has been garbled by translators ; and he also 
says, that the phrase cannot be fixed in its meaning, be- 
cause they have given so many different meanings to it. 
Does he not know, (he ought to know) that almost every 
word, not only in the Greek, but in the English, is capa- 
ble of receiving different meanings. Why does he not 
candidly acknowledge that he does not understand the va- 
ried meanings of the Greek, as I did before of both Greek 
and English. No, but he wants you to believe, that he 
knows the language thoroughly ; but I question, if he is 
any better acquainted with his own language than myself. 
Dr. Johnson in his dictionary has given two hundred and 
forty two meanings to a single monosyllable. I have now, 
I think, explained in such a manner, that you may all un- 
derstand how it is used ; and have endeavoured to prove 
to you, that this term does imply an absolute eternity 
when applied to punishment; and this not upon my own 
authority, nor upon that of any other man, but upon the 
authority of scripture. I will now make a few more re- 
marks on the adjective aionion. My opponent quoted a 
passage from Paul to Philemon, (verse 15) and he won- 
ders that I have not answered it. Now you will observe 
that although lie has complained so much about the trans- 
lators giving different rendering to suit their own purpose, 
yet he himself gives different renderings ! and for what ? 
to suit his own purpose. He says in a note at the bottom 
ef the page " the word aionios may be translated for life 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 223 

which I take to he the apostle's meaning." Now this is 
his proof, that aionios, only refers to the life of Onesimus ! 
Take notice that you have only his hare assertion for it ; 
and yet in another place, when I quoted Parkhurst as au- 
thority for the term Gehenna signifying a future place of 
torment, he says, " what evidence has he given you ? He 
has given you his mere ipse dixit; 99 and pray what more 
has he given with regard to the servant of Onesimus than 
his mere ipse dixit? As he thinks no other evidence is 
required, I shall treat him in his own way. But again. 
Our Lord says, " Make to yourselves friends of the mam- 
mon of unrighteousness, that, w r hen ye fail, they may re- 
ceive you into (aionion) everlasting habitations." Again, 
2 Tim. ii. 10, "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's 
sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in 
Christ Jesus with (aionion) eternal glory." Again, (Pe- 
ter v, 10.) " But the God of all grace, who hath called us 
unto his (aionion) eternal glory, by Christ Jesus, after 
that ye had suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, 
strengthen and settle you." And, 2 Thess. ii. 16, "Now, 
our Lord Jesus Christ, himself, and God, even our Fa- 
ther, which has loved us, and hath given (aionion) ever- 
lasting consolation, and good hope through grace." I am 
sorry for my opponent, that we cannot find it says also a 
temporal consolation, and that we cannot meet with tem- 
poral hope ; were it temporal merely, it would be con- 
solation for the wicked who have their good things 
here in this life. Again, Heh. iv. 15. " They which are 
called, might receive the promise of (aionion) eternal in 
lieritance." Yes, my friends, an absolutely eternal in- 
heritance, and here the term aionion is used and we know 
that it means an eternal salvation from an eternal death, 
and not a temporal salvation from a temporal death. A- 
gain, 2 Cor. v. 1, "For we know, that if our earthly 
house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a build- 
ing of God, an house not made with hands, (aionion) e- 
ternal in the heavens." But my opponent says it is to be 
aionian in the heavens, which is evidently calculated to 
weaken the hope of the christian. So in the preceding 
chapter, 17th verse, the apostl? says, " For our light af- 
fliction which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far 
more exceeding and (aionion) eternal weight of glory." 
But my opponent says, "an excessively exceeding aionian 
weight of glory," in his translation. This reminds me 
of a remark that was once made on Scarlett's translation, 



224 THEOLOGICAE DISCUSSION. 

which is like my opponents ; the writer supposes a poor 
and disconsolate widow, who should take up the transla- 
tion of the New Testament by Scarlett, (or my opponent) 
and she reads till she comes to this passage, where she 
finds '* For our present light affliction worketh for us an 
excessively exceeding aionian weight of glory." She, not 
being able to make sense of it, goes to Mr. Scarlett and 
says, pray, Mr. Scarlett, what does this word aionian 
mean, that I have here found ? Why it means, says Mr. 
Scarlett, sometimes an age sometimes a dispensation and 
sometimes an indefinite period of time, or during the con- 
tinuance of this world. The poor woman said, "Oh ! Mr, 
Scarlett, after so many years of trial and suffering, which 
I have endured, is all the comfort that I did expect only 
to last but a few years, or as long as this world lasts ? Is 
there no more comfort for me?" No. He has no more com- 
fort to give her, for were he to give her any extension of 
comfort, he must give up his system entirely. But this 
he \* ill not do. But, my friends, the christian's hope 
stands upon a foundation stedfast and sure, and does 
not depend upon the translation of Mr. Scarlett, nor of 
Mr. Crimson, nor of any other. There are forty one 
places in the New Testament, where this expression is 
connected with the eternal life of the saints, and every one 
of these expressions means absolutely eternal. 



6 o'clock. 



Mr. Kneeland. — It is a grievous thing, my hearers, in 
relation to any circumstance, much more so in relation to 
the important subject now before us, to be under the ne- 
cessity of thinking for a moment, that a man should be 
uncandid ; but with this, I am obliged to charge my op- 
ponent; nor do I bring this charge against him without 
evidence; but I see no other way to avoid hringingsuch a 
charge than to persuade myself into the belief, that his 
memory does not serve him correctly : this however, af- 
ter such repeated mistakes as he has made, I find some 
difficulty in doing. He stated that I told you, or wished 
you to understand, by that short piece which I read from 
my lectures, that it contains all the light which could be 
given on that subject. Now I appeal to you my hearers, 
if I said any thing which might convey to your mind an 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 2&6 

idea that it contained all that could be said upon the sub- 
ject. No, I said no such thing ! I only said that as I had 
a few spare minutes I would endeavour to give you as 
much light on the subject as possible, in that time. This 
was surely not saying that no more light was to be ob- 
tained ; for I know very well that there was more to be 
obtained, and those who have the means can obtain it; it 
was for the benefit of those who can not obtain a know- 
ledge of the meaning of the terms, that I read the pas- 
sage, and I would ask you, if a person can understand the 
meaning of a Greek word he not knowing the lan- 
guage, unless it is explained to him ? It was for this rea- 
son that I told you the number of times in the singular and 
how often it was used in the plural number. It was in this 
manner that I wished to give you more light, but did not 
intimate that my opponent had not given you any light on 
the subject ; for he has allowed all that I wish him to al- 
low with respect to its varied meanings, accordingly as 
it is used in connexion with things temporal, or things 
eternal ; but it will be perceived that he has brought for- 
ward no evidence to prove his doctrine by it, because he 
has not proved that punishment is either necessarily or in 
its nature endless : all that he has done is to show that the 
word is differently rendered in different places ; and here 
we perfectly agree, namely, that they may be so rendered* 
Then why does he take up your time on subjects about 
which there is no dispute ? He has also found fault with 
me because in my notes on the term aion, I have only 
given you my bare assertion, as he says, for its true read- 
ing ; and this he says is no evidence ; be it so : I then ask 
what evidence has he produced to prove the meaning which 
he has given to all the numerous passages of scripture, 
which he has quoted? He and I are perfectly agreed in re- 
ceiving those scriptural passages as truth: it is only in the 
several meanings , attached by us to them that we differ. 
He objects to the meaning which I attach to them and 
calls it no evidence, and yet when he gives you a passage 
he gives his interpretation of it ; then says, who does not 
know that this is the true meaning ? Now, I ask, in reply 
to him, is this evidence ? is this any thing more than mere 
ipse diocit. But I contend that the assertion which I have 
made, with regard to those terms is true : it wanted no 
proof, it carries proof with it ; for one cannot serve anothei* 
beyond life : and my opponent was perfectly correct when 
be said the term sometimes signifies only the duration of 

29 



226 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 

a man's life. It is just so with regard to that epistle of 
Paul to Philemon, where Paul writing to Philemon, en- 
treats him for his adopted son Onesimus, formerly the 
servant of Philemon, hut who had left his master, who he 
says, " was formerly unprofitable to thee, but now is 
profitable, both to thee and me." Paul therefore urges 
him to receive him again to his favour, as though it were 
himself, and adds by way of a comfortable assurance, 
" perhaps also for this reason he was seperated for a little 
while that he might have him *ta>wv (which, following Dr. 
Maikright in this particular, I have here rendered)/or life." 
Now, I thought it so obviously the meaning of the apos- 
tle, that he was to have him during the remainder of his 
natural life only, that I did not think it necessary to bring 
any thing to prove that this was what he meant : for if he 
meant that he was to be his servant in eternity he does 
not say so, nor do I see how it is to be proved ! If, 
however, it can be proved, it belongs to my opponent 
to do it, as I will not introduce an argument on this point 
to prove the negative. I have asserted that it was only 
during this life ; it is for him to prove the contrary. He 
has asserted that after the general judgment the wicked 
are to be punished to an absolute eternity; but this is 
mere assertion ; has he given you any proof that it will 
be so? I therefore called upon him, in the morning, to 
show from the scriptures of the New Testament, that af- 
ter the general judgment the wicked should be punished 
to an absolute eternity, or to show that punishment is con- 
nected with the general judgment. He may tell you that 
it is implied in the twenty-first chapter of Matthew, verse 
46. " And these shall go away into everlasting punish- 
ment : but the righteous into life eternal.'' Now is there 
any thing said in the whole of this chapter, of a punish- 
ment after death. No, nor is there one word about the 
raising of the dead, or that the dead should be raised to come 
to this judgment, nor one word about the general judgment 
in the whole of the connexion. I am sorry for the state 
of my opponent's cause when he is reduced to the necessity 
of resorting to such a pitiful story, as he related concern- 
ing the meaning of the term aionion ; and although he 
made use of the name of Scarlett, I would as lief he had 
said Mr. Knccland, for he meant it; but he has been un- 
fortunate both in his anecdote, and also in the application 
of it. To work right for him the apostle should have 
"been speaking of Christ, instead of our light affliction ; 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 227 

and aionian weight of glory should have been a glory that 
nothing could exceed. He asks, in the name of the old 
woman, what is the meaning of aionion? and he answers 
it very correctly, which shows that the glory here spoken 
of means something beyond or more weighty than aionion: 
notwithstanding this, he says that aionion means an end- 
less duration of time, and it means that Jesus Christ works 
out for us something far exceeding it ! But was the apos- 
tle speaking of that glory which Jesus Christ worketh for 
us ? Is the apostle speaking of what Christ does ? No, he 
says, " our present light affliction which is but for a mo- 
ment, worketh for us an excessively exceeding aio- 
nian weight of glory ;" or as it is in the original **Q' msGo\»v 
m vTFifQoKm oweviov hath' huperboleneis hup erbolen aionion, weight 
of glory. Now if aionion mean strictly infinite or end- 
less, I ask, what is there that can exceed it, even by a rhe- 
torical figure, so as to be hyperbole upon hyperbole above 
or beyond it ? and yet we are told that our light afflic- 
tions work out for us a far more exceeding &c. i. e. some- 
thing far beyond aionian ; and you will also observe that 
the apostle is not speaking of Jesus Christ, unless our 
light afflictions and Jesus Christ are to be understood as 
perfectly synonimous ! We then, my hearers, have here an 
expression which is precisely the same in extent of mean- 
ing as the one which is used in Matt. xxv. 46. * And 
these shall go away into (aionion) everlasting punishment, 
but the righteous into (aionion) eternal life." Now he tells 
you that I think this only refers to this life: he is right, 
my hearers, and more than that, I mean so. Now, do 
not be astonished at this ; you yourselves are first to hear 
and then determine. I then ask, upon what is this eternal 
life predicated ? Upon good works done in this life. Then 
shall the king say unto them on his right hand, " come ye 
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for 
you from the foundation of the world," and why ? " Be- 
cause I was a hungered and ye gave me meat, thirsty and 
ye gave me drink. I was a stranger and ye took me in, 
&c." And to the wicked he says, " depart from me, ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his 
angels." Why ? " Because I was an hungered and ye 
gave me no drink, &c." Now you will observe the eter- 
nal life that is promised is as a reward for certain duties 
performed in this life and the punishment for a neglect of 
those duties. Now, if my opponent is prepared to prove 
to me that these duties are to be performed to make 



£28 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

us incipients of that blessed state of immortal life, made 
known unto us by our Lord Jesus Christ, and that this is 
the doctrine of the New Testament, or that Christ ever 
taught us such a doctrine, he will have proved something, 
and have set aside all that the apostle Paul hath said upon 
this subject. For he says (Eph. ii. 8,) " by grace ye are 
saved through faith, and not of yourselves, it is the 
gift of God." But my opponent does not believe any more 
than I do that an endless life is the reward of works, it is 
entirely opposed to his creed. It is true that we are re- 
warded for our deeds of benevolence and charity, but not 
with eternal, (i. e. immortal) life. The few good works 
which we have done or can do, have no claims to such a 
reward. John says, (1 John v. iii. 11.) "He thatbeliev- 
eth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself; he 
that believeth not God hath made him a liar ; because he 
believeth not the record God gave of his Son. And this is 
the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this 
life is in his Son." And again, Paul speaking of the 
priesthood of Jesus Christ, who became such not af- 
ter a carnal commandment, says, (Hebrew vii, 16) "who 
is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but 
after the power of an endless life," If therefore God hath 
given us this life in, or through his Son, it is notfof any 
works which we have done but of his free grace." It is the 
gift of God. (Ephe. ii. 8, 9,) " For by grace are ye saved 
through faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of 
God, not of works, lest any man should boast." 

Now in this, 1 believe, my opponent and I must agree, 
as it is the doctrine of the scriptures :— herein we differ: 
he wishes to limit it to a few, while I believe it is intend- 
ed for all. On the other hand, I believe the reward of 
good deeds is limited to those who do them ; and that men 
ate punished for their evil deeds, not in an immortal state, 
but in this life, where they are committed ; and that " in 
keeping his commandments there is great reward," (Ps. 
xix. 11;) and as God hath said by his prophet, (Ezek. xviii. 
SO,) "That the righteousness of the righteous shall he up- 
on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon 
him ;" and as Paul has said, Col. iii. 25, "Whosoever doeth 
wrong shall receive for the wrong he hath done, and there 
is no respect to persons." So on the other hand, it is "m 
his righteousness," not for his righteousness, "he shall 
live/' Ezek. xviii. 22. Now this is the only ground up- 
tm which we can contend for a reward of virtue, and be^> 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 229 

yond this we shall look in vain ; for the eternal life which 
is promised is the free gift of God, and not the reward of 
works which we have done ; and it is our comfort to know 
that God is not partial in his gifts ; he is not a respecter 
of persons, (Acts x. 34;) but he giveth liberally without 
partiality, (James iii. 17.) " But the wisdom that is from 
above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be 
entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiali- 
ty, and without hypocrisy." If, then, the wisdom of God 
is given without partiality, will he give to a few favourites 
' eternal life and not give that life to all of us ? Again, (Ti- 
tus i. 2,) "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot 
lie, promised before the world began," or, as I have said, 
** before the aionian times/ 9 which, though my opponent 
has made some remarks upon it, he cannot show it to be 
incorrect. 

Now, I ask if there is any thing in us that is not in you? 
Or, if this promise was made to you and not to us ? We 
are told that it is not a reward for works, neither is it a 
partial gift : but if it were a promise made before the 
world began and confined to a few, would it not be par- 
tial ? 

Thus, my hearers, I have endeavoured to set the true 
picture of the two doctrines before you, and I admit, as 
well and as fully as my opponent does, that the reward of 
virtue is limited to the virtuous, and that the punishment 
of vice is inflicted upon the vicious ; and not only so, but 
they are rewarded according to their works : but he con- 
tends that it is to be in another state of existence, while I 
contend that they will be rewarded for their merit, and 
punished for their demerits, here ; and it is because I ne- 
ver read in this sacred book that we shall have an infinite 
reward for finite deeds. Endless, or eternal life is not 
given as a reward for any good we have done here; nor 
shall we be punished with endless misery for any evil we 
may here have done ; for had our Heavenly Father pro- 
mised us eternal Life as a reward for our good works, he 
could have had nothing left to have given us as a free gift. 
But he can, and does, give us the full reward of our virtu- 
ous actions here. Then, if he gives eternal life as a free 
gift, it excludes boasting. — Eternal life is no more given 
as the reward of virtue, than endless misery is inflicted as 
the punishment of vice. And do we not see that every 
thing we enjoy is the free gift of God without partiality. 
Look at every thing that he has created : does not his rain 



230 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

descend upon all alike ? What do the scriptures say ? Our 
Lord says, (Matt. v. 45,) " He maketh his sun to rise on 
the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and 
on the unjust." Again, he says, (John iii. 17,) " For God 
sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world, hut 
that the world through him might be saved." Again, (1 
John ii. 2,) " And he is the propitiation for our sins : and 
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 
And (1 Tim. ii. 6,) " Who gave himself a ransom for 
all, to be testified in due time." (Heb. ii. 6,) "That he 
by the grace of God should taste death for every man." 
If, therefore, we deny that he tasted death for every indi- 
vidual being, you must deny that he tasted death for any 
one, which my opponent will not admit. — Notwithstand- 
ing the evidence of all these important truths which I have 
advanced from the scriptures, and without having given 
you one word of argument to contradict them, my oppo- 
nent still contends for the truth of a doctrine directly con- 
trary to what these scriptures prove. And so he would 
make you believe, that when God says he will have all 
men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, 
that he does not mean all, — only a few; and that where 
God says he is " not willing that any should perish, but 
that all should come to repentance," my opponent will tell 
you it does not mean all, but it is only the elect that are 
meant. 

The advocates of this doctrine talk about God's secret 
and revealed will, though I have not heard it yet from my 
opponent. Now, I conceive that if it were a secret will 
God would have kept it to himself, and not revealed it : 
for I have always been under the impression, that where 
revelation begins, mystery ceases. Therefore, as a plain 
man, (for I make no pretensions to perfection in learning, 
though my opponent has sneeringly told you I do,) I un- 
derstand them to mean exactly what they say, and I can- 
didly confess, that if they do not mean what they say, I do 
not know as they mean any thing. Let, then, my oppo- 
nent show you the secret revealed mystery of the scriptures, 
or that they do not mean what they say. It is the same 
with him in the Greek as in the English, he wants to show 
you that the Greek terms mean contrary to the plain lan- 
guage. When you read, (Matt. v. 45,) " He sendeth rain 
on the just and on the unjust," you arc not to believe that 
it means so, but something else, though you know it to be 
true from common observation : — when you read, (John 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 231 

iii. 17,) " God sent not his Son into the world to condemn 
the world; but that the world, through him, might be sav- 
ed," you are not to believe it : — when you read, (l John 
ii. 2,) "Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the 
whole world," you must not believe it : — when you read, 
(Heb. ii. 9,) " We see Jesus, through the suffering of death, 
crowned with glory and honour, that through the favour of 
God, he might taste death for all, (or as it is in the received 
text,) for every man; 99 you must not believe it : — it means 
somethingin revelation, which is, to most of God's intelligent 
creatures, a mystery ; but you must not believe that all, or 
every man, is meant: — and when you read (Rev. v. 13,) 
" And every creature that [is] in heaven, and on the earth, 
and under the earth, and those that are in the sea, and all 
things that are in them, I heard, saying, '• Blessing, and 
honour, and glory, and dominion, be to him who sitteth 
upon the throne, and to the lamb, to the ages of ages," 
you are not to believe it : — although, were I to be permit- 
ted to pen a passage in favour of the doctrine of the uni- 
versal salvation of all mankind, I could not, with all the 
learning, so satirically noticed by my opponent, I could 
not indite one more fully to the purpose. I do not know 
how I could express this doctrine in stronger language. 
For, the inspired writer says, And not only every crea- 
ture which is in heaven, but those on the earth ; and not 
only those in heaven and on the earth, but those that are 
under the earth ; and not only those, but also every crea- 
ture that is in the sea ; and lest there should be any mis- 
take, as though he knew his prophecy would be disputed, 
Jhe says, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, 
&c. Then are they to sing this glorious song of " Bles- 
sing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that 
that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever 
and ever." Now, if this is to be the song of those who 
are in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and 
in the sea, and of all that are in them, I want no better 
Universalism. And if my opponent will give me leave to 
preach such Universalism as this, I shall be perfectly con- 
tented with it. I want no better. 

[The time being out, Mr. M'Calla ascended the stairs, 
— a few words passed between the speakers, and Mr. 
M'Calla said, "We will meet to-morrow morning at half 
past 9 o'clock." — 

Mr. Kneeland, — So be it, — God willing.] 



232 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

The following letter was sent, this evening, to Mf . 
Kennedy, by the other Moderators : 

(COPY.) 
« Dear Sir, 

66 In consequence of several harsh and unprovoked 
expressions which you have made to us since our associa- 
tion with you as Moderators of the Theological Discussion 
(now pending between Rev. Mr. Kneeland and Rev. Mr. 
M'Calla,) we feel it a duty which we owe to ourselves, to 
decline serving with you longer. 

Yours, respectfully, 

WILLIAM HOGAN. 

WILLIAM MORSE. 

Philadelphia, July 16, 1824. 

Mr. Nathaniel Kennedy, Present. 



Note. — I have not addressed Mr. Kennedy as one of the Moderators., 
nor have I sent him the work as it appeared: first, because he was not 
continued in the office to the end of the discussion, for the reasons as- 
signed in the letter sent to him by the two other gentlemen of the Board, 
and, secondly, he told me afterwards he did not wish to have any thing 
more to do with it. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 2S3 



FOURTH DAY. 



FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 16, 



The following letter was addressed, this morning, to 
Mr. M'Calla: 

fCOPYJ 
" Mr. M'Calla, 

" With the consent of Mr. Hogan, I send this to 
inform you that he and myself have declined serving as 
Moderators, for reasons contained in a note addressed to 
Mr. Kennedy last evening. 

WILLIAM MORSE." 

July, 16. — 7i in the morning, 

Mr. M'Calla,— Philadelphia, No. 69 N. Third-st. 



Mr, M'Calla, — It has been considered necessary to make 
some other arrangement with respect to the moderators : 
the alteration was suggested to me in writing. I had no 

[Here a gentleman stood up 9 (JDr, Ely, it is presumed,*) 

and observed that it wanted a few minutes of the time, and 
as Mr, ICneeland had not yet come, he thought it would be 
adviseable to defer making any observations till he did come* 
as he considered it unfair to proceed in the absence of either 
party, Mr, M'Calla immediately sat down: — in a few 
minutes Mr, Kneeland came. Some desultory conversation 
relative to the choosing of some person to succeed Mr, Kenne- 
dy then passed between the parties.'] 

Mr. M*Calla. — I have to inform you, my friends, that 
'the Board of Moderators is dissolved. — I have selected 

30 



234 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION:. 

one in the room of Mr. Kennedy $ and, as the notice has 
been so short, if Mr. Kneeland will agree to the one I 
have selected, ''perhaps the others will consent to resume 
their seats. 

Mr, Kneeland, — If the gentleman whom my opponent 
has selected is a clergyman of this city, of whatever de- 
nomination, I shall not object to him. 

Mr. M'C. — I have selected Dr. Ely. 

Mr, K. — I have no objection; and will thank the other 
gentlemen if they will be so kind as to take their seats 
with Dr. Ely, and hope he will be good enough to accept 
of the appointment. 

[Or, Ely was? therefore, requested to take his seat as a 
Moderator during the remainder of the discussion, and hav- 
ing accepted the offer, he ascended three or four steps of the 
puljrit stairs and addressed the audience by observing,] 

" That upon the propriety or the disadvantage of such- 
discussions as the present, he would give no opinion ; but 
as it had been undertaken, it should be conducted in such 
manner by the speakers as was best calculated to elicit 
truth, and should be attended to by the hearers with that 
order and decorum which became so important a subject. 
He was convinced that each of the gentlemen engaged was 
perfectly sincere in the opinions which he held, and if 
either was convinced of error, he would, no doubt, acknow- 
ledge it: for his part, although he did not hold with Mr. 
Kneeland in sentiment, yet if this discussion should prove 
to him that he held a doctrine which was not founded in 
truth, he would gladly renounce it, and could he be per- 
suaded that the Universalist doctrine was true, he would 
as readily preach that from his pulpit as the doctrine 
which he now preaches ; and so far, he observed, was he 
from being prejudiced against the opinions held by Mr. 
Kneeland, that he would have no objection to hear him 
preach his sentiments, had he the opportunity on a week- 
day, when he was not engaged by his official duties, as he 
is on the Sabbath. He again observed, he did not agree 
with him in sentiment, yet he believed him to be sincere 
and respected him as a man, and as such he would give 
him his hand : — [here they shake hands; and he also shook 
hands with the other moderators :] — and this is a feeling 
that ought to be cherished by all of you who attend this 
discussion, towards both the speakers; no matter how you 
may differ from them in sentiment, viewing them as being 
engaged only in search after truth ; which, if we be in 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 255 

doubt, we all have a right to inquire after: and, he con- 
tinued, although I have extended my hand to Mr. Knee- 
land, I have not done it to force Mr. M^Calla to do the 
same. He has a right to use his own discretion ; and if 
he feels conscientiously scrupulous on the subject, he must 
he left at liberty to please himself. I would, however, 
again urge you all to exercise christian forbearance to- 
wards each other. — He concluded by observing, that since 
the two gentlemen had done him the honour to request 
him to take a seat as one of the judges, he would be much 
pleased to embrace the opportunity, if agreeable to the 
other gentlemen, as he had been pushed about in the crowd 
for the three preceding days, and he certainly should not 
have any objection to taking a good cool seat with them 
during the remainder of the time that it might be necessa- 
rv for him to attend." 



91 o'clock, 

JTr. Rneeland. — The time has now arrived when we are 
again to resume this important discussion, and I cannot 
but express how happy I feel that the arrangement with 
regard to the Bench, has been so speedily, so amicably, 
and so satisfactorily arranged. It leads me to indulge a 
hope that every thing will go on in an orderly and peace- 
able manner, and that it will be considered by all, as it 
has been justly observed, that however widely we may 
differ in sentiment, we still should observe a proper deco- 
rum and christian feeling towards each other while engag- 
ed in this important discussion. Previously, however, to 
our resuming it, as it is my privilege to open the debate 
this morning, I feel it to be my duty to address that Be- 
ing, whom, however we may disagree in things of minor 
importance, we all acknowledge to be the only object wor- 
thy of our supreme worship and adoration; to acknowledge 
the gratitude I feel for having been preserved through the 
silent Watches of the night, and to return our grateful 
thanks to him for all the blessings and privileges, which, 
through his kind Providence we enjoy, as well as to sup- 
plicate the continuance of every needed good. — Those of 
you, my hearers, who can unite with me in this important 
and solemn obligation, will be pleased to rise ; and those., 



236 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

who, from conscientious or other motives, cannot unite 
with us, can keep their seats: we will not condemn them. 
[The prayer was short but impressive; during which time 
there was profound order, though Mr. M'Calla and some 
others kept their seats. — Discussion resumed.'] 

Mr. K. — This is the fourth day of this important discus- 
sion, and I would ask you, my friends, how far we have 
progressed in it ? What has been gained or what lost by 
either the one or the other? To what point have we come 
since its commencement, and if to any one, how has it been 
decided, if decided at all? To me it appears, as I think it 
must appear to you, my hearers, that on the one part it 
has been nearly a continued series of entreaty and solici- 
tation to induce my opponent to come to some one point, 
which we could mutually admit as a main point on which 
this discussion might be finally decided, and on the other, 
a continued series of quotations without any argument to 
prove the meaning which was attached to them, in the in- 
terpretation of which alone we differ, as we both receive 
them as the truths of God. 

You have heard all that has been advanced on each 
side, I shall, therefore, not pretend to attach any undue 
merit to either, but shall leave it to your decision, who are 
to be the judges between us as to the weight of argument 
brought on either side, and I conceive that all that has 
been said on the one side or on the other, is perfectly safe 
in your hands, and there I am perfectly willing to rest it. 

Now, I would ask yon, my friends, what has my oppo- 
nent engaged to prove ? He has engaged to prove that the 
punishment of the wicked is to be absolutely eternal. To 
do this, what should he have proved ? He should have 
shown that a law was given to man, for the transgression 
of which, he was to be put in a place, or prison, called 
hell, where he should remain in misery to an absolute 
eternity. He then should have proved from the scriptures 
the existence of such a prison, that this prison is to last 
to an absolute eternity, that this prison is to be filled with 
human beings ; not that they may be purified from their 
wickedness, but that they are to remain, increasing in sin 
and consequent misery to all eternity; and that this pri- 
son was to be continually increasing in the number of hu- 
man beings which it contains, following one after the other 
as they leave this world, until their number shall be com- 
plete; who are to remain, not by one generation passing 
away and another arising to supply their place, but by the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 237 

perpetuity of the existence of the same generation of peo- 
ple, who will suffer this punishment for the sins committed 
here, and continue to suffer punishment for a continuance 
of sin there; and that the justice of God required them to 
suffer it to all eternity : and lastly, to show from the law 
of God, that this prison is to last, for the reception of the 
wicked so long as God himself exists ! — Has he done this? 
Has he, since he commenced this discussion, established 
even one of these points to the satisfaction of those who 
have attended ? I say, and without any fear of contradic- 
tion, that he has not established one of these points, and the 
most important one, that there is a place where the wick- 
ed will be in torments to an endless eternity, he has not 
even attempted to establish ; that is, if he means to predi- 
cate his doctrine of eternal misery on the wicked being 
cast into Sheol or Hades, which are translated, Hell. 

It is evident, from the scriptures, that death, and the 
receptacle of the dead, Hades, will deliver up their dead, 
and all that are in them, for they are to be cast into the 
lake of fire : (Rev. xx. 13, 14,) " And the sea gave up the 
dead which were in it: and death and hell delivered up 
the dead which were in them : and they were judged every 
man according to their works. And death and hell were 
cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." 
Thus, I not only show you that they are to deliver up all 
that is in them, but prove also that they are to be cast in- 
to the lake of fire, and are to be destroyed or cease to ex- 
ist, which is to be the second death. 

Here it mav be necessary to ask, what is here spoken 
of? It is the death of what? Why of Death and Hades, 
and of nothing else. My opponent has told you that it 
means the death of those beings who are in Hades ; but 
what proof has he given you that this is the meaning? 
His bare assertion, without proof, or even argument. — 
AV hat does the scripture tell you ? Does it not say that 
death and hell are to give up all that are in them before 
they are destroyed ? If, then, they have no beings in them 
when they are cast into the lake of fire, where does my 
opponent find that the beings which they have given up 
are to be cast into the lake of fire? It is death and hell 
that are to be cast into the lake of fire, and not the beings 
that were in them, for they are previously to be given up. 
My opponent must bring something stronger than his bare 
opinion, before we, as rational beings, can receive a doc- 
trine so directly contrary to scriptural testimony. 



238 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

We have no account of Hades or Hell being destroyed 
until it has yielded up all that are contained in it ; no, not 
until it has given up all it possessed : and when it has done 
this it is to be cast in the lake of fire and destroyed. This 
is plain scripture testimony. It is a fact contained in the 
New Testament, and is as well supported as any fact 
that can be proved from it. And whether we consider 
this account to be literally, or figuratively true, it is equal- 
ly in favour of the doctrine for which I contend. It is an 
account of the total end of death, and all that bears the 
name of death, as in Psalm xxxvii. 10, iS For yet a little 
while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt dili- 
gently consider his place, and it shall not be." Now, I 
can tell you, my hearers, we have but two states spoken 
of,as relating to human beings, the one mortal and the other 
immortal. We know that we must all pass through the val- 
ley of the shadow of death, to pass from a mortal to an im- 
mortal state ; but when we have obtained that immortal 
state, can we become mortal again and die a second death ? 
How then does my opponent say that the beings in Hades, 
whom he represents as being immortal, are to undergo 
this second death. Do the scriptures say that the beings 
contained in Death andHades, or Hell» experience a second 
death ? No, but death and Hell which are to be destroyed 
after they have given all up ! I am aware that it says, 
4i And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, 
was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev, xx. 15.) But my 
opponent must prove that some will be raised immortal, 
and yet not be in the book of life, or else that text will 
prove nothing to his purposes. It is of the immortal which 
We speak. For my opponent to prove therefore what he 
has asserted, he must prove that there must be more than 
these two states; namely, that they are mortal, then die 
and become or be raised immortal, then these immortal 
beings undergo a second death, and enter into a third state 
of existence, which may be called immortal death, and of 
course immortal torment ! But I have good evidence, on 
my side, against him : for niether Jesus Christ, nor his 
apostles ever speak of more than two states of man, the one 
earthy, and the other heavenly ; the one mortal and the 
other immortal. Now this is the evidence of scripture ; it 
is not mere opinion and assertion of my own : therefore, 
on this new testament ground, I am willing to rest this ar- 
gument. When Paul is speaking to the bereaved brethren 
who were lamenting the loss of their deceased friends, he 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 259 

says, 2 Thess. iv. 13, 14. "But I would not have you to 
be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, 
that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 
For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even 
so them also who sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." 
Now this may mean only a few or many who sleep in Je- 
sus. I do not bring it to prove that all do. I only brought 
this passage to show that as many as Paul was speaking 
of, were it few or many, who were dead, in that state lie 
spoke of them as being asleep in Jesus. Now did Paul 
tell them this in order to convey to their minds, an idea 
that those who were asleep in Christ would be happy be- 
fore the resurrection ? No, certainly not, but to assure 
them, that he who h^d raised up Christ Jesus from the 
dead, would in like manner raise up those for whom they 
were sorrowing, in his own time at the resurrection; when 
the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, 
"with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of 
God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first." Well, what 
then — shall the dead out of Christ then be raised ? No, we 
read of none such. But " then we who are alive, and re- 
main, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, 
to meet the Lord in the air : and so, we shall be ever- 
with the Lord:" As he also says, 1 Cor. xv. 51. "Be- 
hold I show you a mystery : we shall not all sleep, but we 
shall all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of 
an eye, at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound, anil 
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be 
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption r 
and this mortal must put on immortality." Now you will 
observe, he is not speaking of a part of the dead, but of all;; 
and not only those who are dead, but those who are living 
also. Nor need any one pretend to evade it by saying, he 
is speaking to the Corinthians only, he is speaking of ail 
who die in Adam ; for he says, verse 22, " For as in Adam 
all die ; even so, in Christ, shall all be made alive." Now 
if this does not speak of all mankind, I do not know o£ 
what it does speak. He says, " we shall not all sleep, 
but we shall all be changed." I understand, he means 
by those who will not sleep, those who may be living at 
that period when this great event is to happen : and 
whether I sleep in death or not, if I am to be changed from 
a mortal to an immortal state, and from a life of suffering 
to a state of bliss and happiness, it is all I want. I un- 
derstand by the. word corruptible, a state> whicji is liable 



£40 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

to sin and misery, and which may be destroyed; and by 
incorruptible, a perfect state. As therefore, I have the 
evidence of Jesus Christ by his apostle Paul, that all who 
do inhabit, or have inhabited a corruptible body, will be 
raised incorruptible, it is quite sufficient for me. Let my 
opponent, therefore, prove the words of the apostle to be 
false, before I contend with him further on this subject. My 
object at present, is, to establish one important fact, name- 
ly, that whether few or many will be raised, those who are 
raised, will be raised to a perfect state : for immortality 
cannot err : nor is it any where stated in the scriptures 
that it is given as the reward of works : but it is declared 
to be the free gift of God. Now if this free gift is for all, 
and immortality cannot err, how says my opponent that 
some will be continually increasing in a state of sin and 
misery to an absolute eternity ? And if immortality can 
err, with reverence I would ask, what prevents the Su- 
preme Being from erring himself? I shudder, my hearers, 
at the idea ! God is no more than immortal. How then 
is it possible for immortality to err. I therefore contend, 
with the apostle for my authority, that when all things of a 
mortal nature shall come to an end, that all shall be raised 
to an immortal and incorruptible state; and if the ground 
which I have taken be correct, namely, that immortality 
cannot err, my side of the proposition may without difficul- 
ty be proved true ; and if it is not correct, let my oppo- 
nent show to the contrary. He has urged that immortal 
life is given as the reward of works, and only to true be- 
lievers. Now the doctrine of the scriptures is, that it is 
a free gift, and this is the doctrine of the church to which 
he professes to belong ; which you will perceive if I read 
Jiis confession of faith : and if, what he has told you be 
right, that it is a reward for good works, I have only to 
bring him to his confession of faith, to prove that he does 
not believe what is there contained. And if the doctrine 
there contained be right, he must admit that I am right ; 
for I maintain that the determination, in the mind of God 
to give to man an immortal existence, was distinctly, de- 
terminately, and unalterably fixed before the creation of 
the world. But if it is not predicated on works, nor on 
faith, on what is predicated ; or, you may say, what chance 
is there of salvation ? Does it depend upon any revealed 
will of God to select one and reject the other ? I would 
say not : but if this doctrine be true and my opponent can 
support it from the scriptures, I am willing to give him 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 241 

the argument. But I would ask, what evidence have 
those who term themselves the elect, that they are any more 
the peculiar favourites of Heaven than others? What 
evidence have they that they are saved from that threat- 
ened punishment, which they deal out with such a hold 
hand to others ? You who believe in the salvation of an 
elected few, undoubtedly consider yourselves as belonging 
to the number. But I would ask, how do you know that you 
are one of the elect? Is there any word or passage in the 
scriptures, which authorises you to single yourselves out, 
from others, as one of the peculiar favourites of our heav- 
enly Father. No, you must confess that you have no such 
evidence ; nor any evidence except that which is within 
you. The evidence of the scriptures is, if a man doth 
righteously, he is born of God, and the love of God abideth 
in him, and this will be evinced by the love which he will 
bear to his fellow creatures. If then you possess this love, 
you will have reason to hope for yourself. But are you, 
can you be certain, that you are, or will be saved, upon 
the principles of my opponent ? Do you find no uncer- 
tainty rankling in your minds? If you do, how stands 
your hope then ? Yea, if you have much hope, have you 
not also much fear ? If so, how does your faith accord with 
the scriptures, 1 John iv. 18, " There is no fear in love: 
but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath tor- 
ment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." Do 
your feelings tally with this scripture, or do you reject 
scripture evidence and depend upon miraculous powers ? 
Another proof of a man's being born of God, is in 1 John 
iii, 9, " Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin, 
for the seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because 
he is born of God." Now, do not you commit sin ? It is to 
be feared that you do, then how say you that you are of the 
elect. The apostle says, "He that saith he has no sin, de- 
ceiveth himself, and the truth is not in him." Now, change 
the position, place your hope on faith and works, or on the 
final perseverance of the saints, are you sure that you 
will continue unto the end ? Are you any more secure from 
committing sin, than Peter was when he said to our Lord 
Math, xxvi. 33. " Though all men shall be offended be- 
cause of thee, yet will I never be offended ;" and verse 35. 
" Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee;" 
and yet how soon did he betray his weakness by denying 
his master ! Then, whatever your feelings may be now of 
the certainty of your salvation, are you certain, you will 

31 



242 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

possess those same feelings at a dying hour ? If not, what 
proof will you then have of your being one of the elect ? 
On either of these grounds which my opponent depends 
for salvation, your feelings are put in fear, as well as mine. 
You then can have no better evidence of your election than 
I have of mine ; neither can you be certain that you will 
die penitent. But, my hearers, I do not rest my hope of 
immortality on so shallow a foundation as human frail- 
ties. I depend upon something more solid and substan- 
tial, even upon the promises of that Being, who, because 
lie could swear by no greater, has sworn by himself. It 
is upon his promise made known to us by his son Jesus, 
that I rest : therefore my hope is stedfast and sure ; with- 
out a gloomy doubt or corroding fear. For we have the 
sure word and testimony for it. (1 John v. 11.) "God 
has given us eternal life, and that life is in his own." My 
opponent says, yes, that means to believers only. Docs 
he not say this my hearers in direct opposition to the 
scriptures ? Have you any evidence from them that God is 
partial in this precious gift of his Son. Let him prove 
that God is partial, before he again makes such an asser- 
tion. The scriptures say, (l John ii. 2, 3,) " And if any 
man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ 
the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins." — 
Perhaps my opponent may be disposed to say that this on- 
ly means for the apostles and believers ; but mark what fol- 
lows : " And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world." Now, if our Lord made a propitiation for 
the sins of the whole world, and his offering was sufficient, 
will not all be saved ? And if not, as the same thing must 
always prove the same thing, what evidence have you that 
the apostles themselves arc saved ? For they rested their 
hope of salvation on the Lord Jesus Christ alone : if, there- 
fore, the only dependence we have, is on the Lord Jesus, 
we have the same assurance of the salvation of the whole 
w^orld as we have of their salvation, or of any other indi- 
viduals that ever existed. I now wish my opponent to 
meet me upon some point, upon any one he pleases, where- 
by we may bring this discussion to a close ; for although 
I have promised to meet him till both parties are satisfied 
yet I have notjpromised to continue it to an unnecessary and 
unreasonable length ; nor have I the controulofthis house 
to any indefinite time, and therefore cannot promise my 
opponent that it can be had for this purpose after to-day. 
I, or my friends, have provided a house for four days; let 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 243 

him or his friends, do the same for a like number of days, 
and in this way by each providing a house for an equal 
period of time, I will meet him as long as he will meet 
me : therefore in making this statement I think it will be 
admitted, even by my opponent, that there is nothing in 
it like shrinking from a continuance of the contest. If 
he, or his friends, provide a place for the same period of 
time, that I or my friends do provide one, I will continue 
it till death removes one of us : nor do I anticipate that 
any one will say there is any unfairness or want of can- 
dour in this proposition. I wish to deal fairly with my 
opponent, and to be candid with him, though I must say 
he has not been so with me, hut you are to be our judges. 



11 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — I now know my time, and know what I 
have to do in the time I have allotted to me. It is well 
known to you all that I am a stranger among you, and it 
is equally well known that I have no church here, neither 
have a congregation. As, therefore, it is probable that it 
will not be convenient for me to procure another house, and 
as I have been refused a further use of this for the continu- 
ance of the discussion, I shall endeavour to say all that I 
can upon the subject to-day, and bring this discussion, God 
willing, to a close this evening; and I hope that neither 
you nor my opponent will think it strange if I should not 
answer his arguments, as my time is so very limited. 

The question which is the subject of this debate is in the 
hands of the moderators, and has appeared in print. It is 
not to determine whether the wicked are punished for their 
crimes committed in this life, for that is not disputed ; but 
whether they are to be punished in another state, and to an 
endless eternity. I have engaged, on my part, to prove 
that the punishment of the wicked is eternal ; and on the 
other hand, my opponent has engaged to prove that it is 
only temporal. Now, you will observe that there are not 
two distinct questions in the proposition ; there is but 
one, — one side of which I have engaged to prove and my 
opponent has equally engaged to prove the other. — It may 
be well for you to know that there are different opinions 
with respect to temporal punishment ; but he has very dis- 
tinctly told you which side of the question he holds and 
what he means to attempt to prove, and that he will sup» 



£44 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

port that part of the proposition contained in the question, 
which states that the punishment is not absolutely eternal, 
but that " it is only a temporal punishment in this world 
for their good, and to be succeeded by eternal happiness 
after death.'' He has given you an opportunity of ascer- 
taining in what manner he intends attempting to prove his 
part of the proposition : for the resurrection, he has told 
you, is in this life, and does not mean any thing which 
will take place in another state of existence after death ? 
On the other hand, I insist upon the truth of that part of 
the proposition contained in the first question, that the 
punishment of the wicked is absolutely eternal, and deny 
the second part of the proposition, contained in the second 
question ; because it is untrue. It will be my duty, there- 
fore, to prove the truth of the first, and my opponent's du- 
ty to prove the truth of the latter. 

It may be necessary to observe what is necessary to 
bring this discussion to a point on which it may be finally 
determined. In order to do this, I must bring forward all 
the evidence that can be produced, to prove that it is ab- 
solutely eternal, and he, on his part, to produce all the 
evidence he can, to prove that it is only temporal. To de- 
termine it, therefore, I must prove that it is eternal, or 
he must prove that it only temporal. I shall, therefore, 
notice all the evidence already adduced in favour of its be- 
ing eternal, and then give you a refutation of the argu- 
ments produced by the opponents of this sacred truth. — I 
shall not attempt to follow my opponent, nor to dispute, 
what he has advanced. 

I had purposed bringing forward and arranging in bet- 
ter order than he has done, the most powerful texts on 
which the advocates of his doctrine found their belief, and 
the arguments which have been adduced in favour of it by 
men far more able to do justice to the cause than he has 
done to it, so that we might have the strongest weight of 
evidence arrayed before us on each side. As, however, I 
have received a hint to close soon or not at all, if I should 
be prevented from accomplishing this, you will all know 
the reason. But I am willing to submit, as I consider it 
all at the disposal of Providence. 

With respect to that note which was produced yester- 
day, I here declare that I never told any man that I did 
not intend ever to come to the point. But I am certainly 
entitled to my own way of doing so. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. £45 

You may all easily see by my manner of proceeding that 
I had a regular course laid out, which I wished as regu- 
larly to pursue. I first endeavoured to prove the abso- 
lutely eternal punishment of the wicked from the attri- 
butes of God, that his justice required it ; and this was by 
producing such a number of passages of scripture in which 
the doctrine was clearly contained. Secondly, From the 
utter helplessness of man, which is clearly set forth in the 
scriptures, and that man cannot deliver himself from this 
punishment which is eternal; he must, therefore, take hold 
of the great deliverer who alone is able to save him from 
it; but that living and dying in sin, he must inevitably 
perish. — There are three passages which clearly imply 
this. Heb. ii. 3, ''How shall we escape if we neglect so 
great salvation." Now, they say we can escape it, al- 
though we should neglect this salvation. — In the next 
place, I have shown you many passages where there is an 
evident contrast between the future condition of the righ- 
teous and the wicked; such as, the wicked "shall not 
stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of 
the righteous," (Ps. i. 5.) But they say, " We shall 
all stand in the congregation of the righteous." — The next 
was by negative expressions, such as, (Mark ix. 43 — 46,) 
where the place of torment is spoken of as a fire which 
never shall be quenched, and that as it is an unquenchable 
fire, it shows plainly that it must mean eternal punish- 
ment. Again, (Matt. xii. 31,) "All manner of sin and 
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." 
And (Luke xiv. 24,) " That none of those which were bid- 
den shall taste of my supper." But they say that they 
shall all taste of his supper. — And I have shown that their 
punishment is absolutely eternal by those positive declara- 
tions of scripture which state it to be so. 

There are fifteen passages where the same terms, 
(eis tons aionas ton aionon,) which are used in other places 
in connexion with future punishment, and are rendered 
for ever, and for ever and ever, are used in such a con- 
nexion that it will not be necessary for me to attempt to 
prove that they are unlimited; but we must admit them to 
mean an absolute eternity from the sense in which they 
are used : and if we admit that these passages, without a 
single exception, have that meaning, we must equally ad- 
mit that in all other passages where the same term is used, 
it must also mean eternal ; and, therefore, when used in 



246 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 

connexion with punishment, it proves that punishment 
must be so too. 

There is another term about which much has been said; 
it is the term aionios, which never means any thing short 
of an absolute eternity ; and whenever it is used in the 
scriptures, it always means that ; (except in half a dozen 
places, and there being used in connexion with punish- 
ment, my opponent contends it cannot mean eternity ;) but 
if it means eternity in all the rest of the numerous passa- 
ges, we have a right to conclude that it has the same mea- 
ning when used in this connexion. I quoted a passage 
yesterday, from which my opponent had been endeavouring 
to prove, that the term was applied to signify only the 
duration of a man's life, in the case of the servant of 
Philemon, on which he commented with a greater degree 
of plausibility than I had expected, and in such a reason- 
able manner as we are not accustomed to hear from him. 
In noticing his remarks, I quoted his own assertion, and 
I observed that bare assertions were no proof. He says 
that he has given you proof that it does not imply eterni- 
ty ; we will examine his proof. In Paul's epistle to Phi- 
lemon concerning his servant Onesimus, he says, " For 
perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that tbou 
shouldest receive him aionion" (rendered "for ever," in 
the common version.) But my opponent has it "for life" 
Now I would ask, is Paul telling Philemon to treat One- 
simus as a servant? No, but as a brother, a brother in the 
faith. My opponent says, that Paul could not mean that 
Philemon was to retain him as a servant in another state 
of existence, and I really thought there was some plausi- 
bility in his arguments, more than I could have expected, 
and remained under that impression till I read the next 
verse, and then I saw immediately what Paul meant. He 
says, "Not now as a servant but, above a servant, a brother 
beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, 
botli in the flesh and in the Lord." When I read this I 
could not but think of the strong words which escaped from 
the man who has translated the New Testament for us ; 
and convinced me how correct he was in saying that a 
bare assertion was no proof. For my part I never thought 
that Paul wanted Philemon to receive him as a servent 
for ever : for in another world those who die in the Lord 
will be all equal ; but as a dearly beloved brother in 
Christ : as one who will enjoy with him the blessings 
promised to believers in heaven : nor am I aware that 



/ 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 247 

there is, or ever will be any thing in heaven to destroy 
this connexion which exists between the Lord Jesus Christ 
and his saints. Are we to be brethren here on earth and 
not to be brethren in Christ, or in heaven ? But they are 
termed both fellow servants and brethren ; as in Rev. xix. 
10. "I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren 
that have the testimony of Jesus." That is, I am 
thy brother who am come to inform thee of things that 
shall come to pass : — a brother united by those bands 
which shall never be dissolved : — a fellowship which exists 
while we are here on the earth and will exist for ever in 
glory among those who are brethren in Christ. Some- 
times those heavenly fellow servants are sent here to com- 
fort and encourage those who are on the earth, that we 
may continue to the end receiving the reward of our faith 
even the salvation of our souls. So that the whole of his 
sophistical arguments are after all of so little importance 
that I would not have noticed them if it had not been to 
make you acquainted with his sophistry. I noticed yes- 
terday something of a similar nature, which I wish again 
to bring to your remembrance ; but I will not dwell long 
upon it as my time is limited. It will therefore be neces- 
sary for me to be as short as possible. But as it is one 
worthy of your attention, I will repeat it. A poor widow 
who was in great affliction came to one of these learned 
translators with a great deal of sincere simplicity and full 
of anxious inquiry to know the meaning of a certain ex- 
pression which she had read, in a book that had been lent 
her by a brother. Now I wish you to observe it, that you 
may judge of the wisdom of the translator, and whether 
it be a supposed case or a real one is of very little impor- 
tance. When she came to Mr. Scarlett, or Crimson, or 
any man you please, she told him she had come to read 
the passage that he might explain it to her : she read the 
translation of the passage (2 Cor. iv. 17) " For our light 
affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far 
more exceeding and aionion weight of glory." She says, 
pray, Mr. Scarlett, what means the word aionion? Why, 
it means a temporal duration, the duration of an age. And 
is this all that I shall enjoy, only a temporal comfort and 
nothing more for all my many years of sorrow and afflic- 
tion which I have endured ? It is all, he says, for it does 
not prove the eternity of salvation any more than it 
proves the eternity of the sinner's punishment. The poor 
widow much disappointed says, well, Mr. Scarlett, or 



248 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

any thing else you please, have you no more comfort for 
me than this ? Surely this could never have been intended 
for comfort, for I find none of it here, I had fondly hoped 
that instead of a temporal comfort it had been an eternal 
one. So that the translation of these learned men defeats 
to a certain extent the design of the gospel which was to 
impart comfort to the poor souls of believers while here 
on earth. But let them mutilate the scriptures as they 
please, there is yet one text left in Hebrews ix. 11, 12, 
"But Christ being come an High Priest of good things 
to some, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not 
made with hands, that is to say not of this building : nei- 
ther by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
blood he entered in once into the holy place, having ob- 
tained aionian (eternal) redemption for us," Now, if this 
was the only one contained in the scriptures it is as satis- 
factory as we can desire; for if one proves the doctrine it 
is all we want : and were all the others silent on this 
matter, it would be of no consequence. But perhaps they 
may be disposed to say that what Jesus Christ says by 
his apostle Paul is not worthy of belief, unless he preached 
it to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. A similar pas- 
sage to this is found in 2 Cor. v. L. But perhaps they 
will say that this indissoluble tabernacle is spoken of in 
relation to Jesus Christ, and that it is not at all applica- 
ble to the case of the widow. 

Thus, my friends, has this learned translator given you 
a great deal of light by this new translation. He says 
that it is to be an excessively exceeding aionian weight of 
glory ; that is, that it is a time going beyond aionian, and 
that the term aion meaning an age, exceeding aionian, 
means, to a temporal age and beyond it ; for it carries the 
idea of more than ages. You may define aionian as you 
please, says he, and yet it never implies, of itself, an ab- 
solute eternity ; for it sometimes means one period of time 
and sometimes another, according to the connexion in 
which it is used. 

Now, what comfort did this afford the poor widow? — 
That she was to continue, perhaps, for many ages longer, 
uefore her soul should enter heaven, and then it would be 
uncertain how long this aionian glory might last; and the 
comfort which she had been expecting as soon as she left 
this world, she now looks forward to a very remote pe- 
riod, if at all. For he says that David, who died so many 
centuries ago, is not yet there ! What comfort can they, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 249 

then, give to the afflicted ? They have none for themselves. 
The remarks which he has made on this passage do not 
afford the least shadow of a criticism. They are the mere 
opinions of a visionary sophist; hecause the term exceed- 
ing is used before the word aionian, it must be either an 
adjective or a participle ; but it is not found as a partici- 
ple in the Greek. And if it were found so in the Greek, does 
it necessarily imply beyond aionian ? For if it be a partici- 
ple, it is placed by apposition, and not in government. 

Now, I, on my part, never pretended to have much 
knowledge of the Greek, and, therefore, never presumed 
to translate the scriptures, and I should suppose that those 
who do not know any more of the Greek than I do, should 
not attempt to translate. 

But I am not alone in my opinion that it is placed by 
apposition, and not in government, for the learned Chry- 
sostom has given the same opinion here that I have, (and I 
question very much if my opponent does not mean the 
same thing himself, but expresses it differently : (he uses 
a remarkable contrast : he compares the adjective aionian 
by adding another word, and doubles that word to express 
the absolute eternity which is here intended. But my op- 
ponent tells you in his note on this passage, "if aionian be 
strictly infinite or endless, how can any thing exceed it, 
even by a rhetorical figure, so as to be hyperbole upon hy- 
perbole above or beyond it V 9 

Now observe, instead of making it express an absolute 
eternity which he should have done, he has translated it, 
" excessively exceeding aionian weight of glory ." He 
told you in the course of his remarks, that he added this 
word to give force to the expression, and says, it means 
a going beyond aion.- — Now, I really wish that he knew a 
little more Greek, or possessed more honesty ; for he, not 
a moment before, compared it so as to imply an absolute 
eternity himself. 

I think I have now done enough, and said enough on 
these two texts to show the fallacy of their translation, and 
to prove that the true meaning of the term is an absolute 
eternity ; I will, therefore, not take up much more of my 
precious time on this subject, which is now so limited that 
you must excuse me if I do not take notice of every one of 
his sophistical arguments which he has advanced, as I 
have already given you the reason. 

In relation to that passage in 2 Cor. v. 1, we read in 
his translation, " For we know that, if our earthly house 

32 



££0 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

©f this tabernacle were destroyed, we have a building from 
God, a house not made with hands, aionian, in the hea- 
vens." — Now, suppose that I were a poor weak man, we 
will not suppose the case of the widow again, and I have 
been guilty of many grievous sins, for which I mourn day 
and tiight; the more I know of the love of God, my Saviour, 
the more dissatisfied I am with myself: and suppose I 
were so borne down with the sense of my guilt in the sight 
o f God, and with my afflictions here on earth, that I had 
no notion that it was possible for me to remain here, ac- 
cording to all human probability : but suppose, further, 
that I were to die in this state : — (and, my friends, I am 
willing to die in defence of that sacred cause which I am 
advocating,) should I be without hope ? No : we who are 
believers have a building not made with hands, eternal in 
the heavens. Now, what consolation would that idea of a 
heavenly building afford me if I thought it was only tem- 
poral ? What ! Is that heavenly house to be destroyed as 
well as those which we now inhabit and which are only 
temporal ? This, indeed, would be more singular than his 
note, which tells you that it is to go above or beyond eter- 
nity. This mode of reasoning of his may do very well 
for some who know no better. 

When our Lord was asked by a certain ruler, (Luke x. 
25—28,) " What shall I do to inherit eternal life ? He 
said unto him, What is written in the law ? How readest 
thou ? And he answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; and thy 
neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast 
answered right : this do, and thou shalt live." Now, you 
all know that it was not a temporal life that he meant, 
but an eternal one. — Again, (John v. 39,) "Search the 
scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal life : and 
they are they which testify of me." Now, did any Jew 
expect eternal life from him ? No, nor from what he said : 
they did not look for eternal life from him, and he knew it; 
therefore he says, they look unto the old law of Moses. 
It was in Moses they trusted, and would not have this 
eternal life which was offered to them ; therefore, (as it is 
said in Acts xiii. 46,) " It was necessary that the word of 
God should first have been spoken to you ;" that is, to the 
Jews ; " but seeing ye put it from you, and judg your- 
selves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gen- 
tiles." ' 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 251 



101 o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — I consider it necessary to state, for the 
information of my opponent and this numerous and re- 
spectable congregation, that I have no more command over 
this house than he has. I have not spoken to any one on 
the subject, and, therefore, do not know what is the opi- 
nion of the Trustees concerning it ; I only meant to be un- 
derstood that / could not promise it, and if it should be ob- 
tained, others must be consulted besides myself. For aught 
I know to the contrary, the house may be obtained for the 
purpose as long as we may live. I have not said the house 
could not be obtained longer than to-day ; for I am not 
aware that it cannot. I only meant to inform my oppo- 
nent that it does not rest with me.— He has the same 
means of providing a building as I have. We were per- 
mitted the use of this through the kindness of my friends ; 
but it was not anticipated that the discussion would con- 
tinue to an unreasonable length, and this is the fourth day 
that we have continued it here. Now, let him provide 
another building, through the influence of his friends, for 
an equal period of time, and so alternately. If he will do 
this, I will meet him as long as he will meet me, or till 
one or the other of us is convinced of his error. 

My opponent has talked a great deal about my argu- 
ments. I am perfectly willing that he should call them 
sophistical ; for I am well convinced that his calling them 
so, will make them neither more nor less so than they really 
are ; and with the judicious part of this assembly, who are 
as well qualified to judge of the soundness of the argu- 
ments produced on either side as he is, his terming the ar- 
guments which I produce, sophistical, will not convince 
them that they are so, contrary to the evidence of their 
own senses. I am, therefore, perfectly willing to rest the 
truth of what I have stated, with them, without any fur- 
ther comment, knowing that they will give the arguments 
all the credit they deserve. 

He says he has produced several passages of scripture 
directly to the point, in order to prove his part of the pro- 
position. Now, I ask, if he has produced so many positive 
passages, has he not produced one ? And if he has produced 
one passage which signifies absolute eternity, what one is 
it ? Let him select his passage, and it will be only neces- 
sary for hini to show that it is used in connexion with 



252 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

punishment, and of course he will prove his favourite doc- 
trine of eternal punishment. But has he done so ? Has 
he shown one passage where a term which necessarily im- 
plies an absolute eternity, is used in connexion with pun- 
ishment? Not one! He has named several where the terms 
used are in connexion with things that in themselves im- 
ply eternity in its fullest extent; but here those things arc 
understood to be strictly eternal, not because the terms 
connected with them prove them so, but because they are 
eternal in their nature ; as, the existence of God, the life 
given us in Christ Jesus, or the immortal life which will 
be given us in the resurrection. 

He has produced one passage which contains a phrase 
which I have admitted may imply an absolute eternity, 
and which is rendered world without end, but he has not 
produced a single text where this phrase is used in con- 
nexion with punishment. Now if he cannot produce one 
text which proves his doctrine, I ask, will his producing 
ten thousand texts of the like kind, containing terms which 
are merely equivocal, any more prove it ? But if it is to 
be proved from the scriptures, let him take two or three 
of his strongest texts, and we will examine them, that we 
may not confound your senses with the multitude of num- 
bers, which are to convince you merely by the sound of the 
words falling upon your ears. — " In the mouth of two or 
three witnesses shall every word be established." [2 Cor. 
xiii. 1.] — When he has marked these texts, let him then 
show what he means to prove by one and what by another; 
and when he has summed up the whole, or a sufficient 
number to prove his doctrine, 1 shall then no longer com- 
plain that I have nothing to say, for he will have given 
me something to answer. But if he is not enabled to do 
this, in consequence, as he tells you, of his time being li- 
mited, will he not be able, with all his numerous friends, 
to procure another place 2 If not, why does he not make 
the best use of the time he has, and not waste it by talk- 
ing so much about his time being limited ? 

But he has told you, he has said sufficient on the word 
aionian to prove that it means eternal duration. Well, 
suppose that he could prove that Paul meant Philemon 
was to receive Onesimus as his brother and friend to all 
eternity, what proof is it of the doctrine of eternal punish- 
ment ? It proves nothing more than we have already grant- 
ed, namely, that the word may signify an eternal dura- 
tion: — and we also grant that Philemon may have One- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 253 

simus as a brother to all eternity ; but at the same time, 
contend that this was not the meaning of the apostle.— 
We do not dispute but the saints will he happy to all eter- 
nity ; then why waste your time in talking about that 
which is admitted by both parties? Nor have we disputed 
that aionian does sometimes convey the idea of an abso- 
lute eternity, but it is when used in connexion with things 
that in their nature imply an eternal existence. So far 
from denying this, we have admitted, in your hearing, 
that aionion, when connected with Jehovah, as aionian 
Jehovah expresses the eternal existence of a Being 
ing having neither beginning of days nor end of life ; but 
when it is said that God is without beginning of days or 
end of life, and he is also called the aionian Jehovah, the 
term aionian must be considered in a sense which will an- 
swer to that Being who is without beginning of days or 
end of life. I have admitted all this without any hesita- 
tion. — On the other hand, he has admitted just as much as 
I have. I have admitted, that when applied to things in 
themselves eternal, it signifies an endless period of time; 
and he has admitted that the same word, when used in con- 
nexion with things of a temporal nature, or with things 
connected with time, that it is limited to the existence or 
continuance of those things, and does not mean eternity. 
For example, the land of Canaan was given to Abraham 
for an aionion (everlasting) possession, (Gen. xvii. 8;) 
the mountains are called aionion (everlasting) mountains ; 
the hills, also, are called perpetual bills, (Habak. iii. 6;) 
the Levitical priesthood is called an aionion (everlasting) 
priesthood, (Exod. xl. 15, and Num. xxv. 13.) Do webe- 
lieve that Abraham or his seed will possess the land of 
Canaan in eternity? Or that the mountains and hills will 
last after the earth is destroyed ? Do we believe that the 
priesthood there spoken of was to last for ever? Do we 
not know that it has been succeeded by another, (Heb. vii. 
11 — 19,) "If, therefore, perfection were by the Levitical 
priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what 
further need was there that another priest should rise after 
the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the or- 
der of Aaron ? For the priesthood being changed, there is 
made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of 
whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, 
of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is 
evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah ; of which tribe 
Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is 



254 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

yet far more evident : for that after the similitude of Mel- 
chisedec there ari$eth another priest, who is made, not af- 
ter the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power 
of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for 
ever, after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily 
a disanulling of the commandment going before, for the 
"weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made 
nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did ; 
by which we draw nigh unto God." My opponent there- 
fore has conceeded full as much as I have : then how much 
nearer are we to the point ? If he can prove that the term 
is used to imply the eternity of God, what does it amount 
to ? It proves nothing in this case : for we have also 
shown that the same term is used in connexion with things 
that have ceased, and others that will cease, to exist. He 
must therefore prove, that when aionian is used in con- 
nexion with punishment it implies as absolutely an eterni- 
ty as when it is applied to represent the continued exist- 
ence of God : and this he cannot do, unless he can show 
that it is equally eternal in its nature ; or else give just 
reasons why it should be so continued. Has he done this 
in any one instance? No, he has not, and he must be sen- 
sible that he cannot. He has told you with his accustom- 
ed accuracy, that Universalists say, the wicked shall 
" stand in the congregation of the righteous." I wish to 
know where he met with this as the opinion of a Univer- 
salist. Did he meet with it in my translation of the New 
Testament, or in my Lectures ? 'Did he hear it from me ? 
Have you heard me say so? Or, let him, if he can, name 
any Universalist that ever said so, either in his hearing, 
or the hearing of his friends. No, my hearers, I do not 
believe he could name a single individual who ever said, 
or ever thought so. Then why should he attempt to scan- 
dalize them, by making assertions which neither they nor 
his opponent ever asserted or believed. We do not believe 
that sinners can stand in the congregation of the righ- 
teous, but on the contrary we believe that sin is so intimate- 
ly connected with misery, that so long as a sinner remains 
in his sins, it is impossible for him to be happy. "For 
without holiness no man can see the Lord." This is 
what we believe. But I am so willing to accommodate 
him, that I will rest the decision of the debate on this 
ground. If he will prove that any of God's creatures will 
be in a state of rebellion against him to all eternity he 
will prove enough to establish his doctrine of endless mis- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 255 

ery ; for I repeat, wherever there is sin, there must be 
misery ; and I believe it is as possible for a man to be sa- 
ved from being drowned who is forty feet under water, 
and remains there, as it is for a sinner to be saved in his 
sin. Why does he wish to make you believe a statement 
which is so untrue, if it be not to prejudice you against 
his opponent. For Universalists believe what the scrip- 
tures tell them ; and they prefer this teaching to the blind 
traditions of men. And what do they teach ? That " his 
name was called Jesus." Why ? — because he shall save 
his people in their sins ? No, " he shall saA r e his people 
from their sins." Matt. i. 21. This is what Universalists 
believe. This is the ground on which they stand. When- 
ever God says that he will visit their sins with a rod, and 
their iniquities with stripes, does he threaten to punish 
any but sinners ? does he mean he will punish his saints 
with this punishment? No, because he is holy and righ- 
teous. He will not punish those who do not deserve it. 
When a sinner is made holy and saved from his sin, he 
will be no longer punished : consequently, unless it can be 
proved that the sinner will continue to sin in eternity, and 
to all eternity, (which wants strong proof to convince us 
that he will) how can he be justly punished not only in 
eternity, but also to all eternity ? Paul says, (in his first 
epistle to Tim. i. 15,) "This is a faithful saying, and wor- 
thy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came in the world 
to save sinners ; of whom I am chief." Now if this be true, 
as Paul said and we believe, that Jesus Christ came into 
the world to save the chief of sinners, are we not justified 
in believing that there are none too bad to be saved ? Was 
Paul a sinner after his conversion ? Was he then Jit fuel 
for Hell torments ? Or did he speak in reference to what he 
had been ? In either case it proves a salvation for the chief 
of sinners. He says, (Rom. vii. 9) " For I was alive 
without the law once : but when the commandment came 
sin revived and I died." I suppose my opponent will agree 
with me that it was not a natural death which he meant, 
but a spiritual one; for he says, (verse 10,) "For sin tak- 
ing occasion by the commandment deceived me, and by 
it slew me." Now, observe, Paul says, (Rom. viii. 1,2,) 
" There is therefore now no condemnation to them which 
are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after 
the spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Je- 
sus hath made me free from the law of sin and death," 
This is what Universalists believe, namely, that there is 



256 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

no salvation for us only as we are made free from the law 
sin and death ; and we believe that no other law will make 
you free from sin but the law of the spirit of life in Christ 
Jesus ; but if my opponent can show a law which will not 
make free from sin, but which will prove to the contrary 
of what is stated by the apostle, and will bind the sinner 
in sin and consequent misery to all eternity, then he of 
course gains his point. The law, for which I contend "is 
perfect, converting the soul." Ps. x, 7 . This is our ar- 
gument; for the same law is applicable to the whole 
world. "For Christ is the propitiation not for our sins 
only, but for the sins of the whole world." 1 John ii. 2. 

But my brother, — yes, I say my brother, though he is 
my opponent in this debate, — says that it is only a few 
that will be saved from this law of sin and death, and that 
the majority of his fellow creatures will be under this law 
in eternity, suffering the torments of eternal fire ! But 
has he proved that there is this fire in another world ? Or, 
that there will be sin, and consequently punishment, in a 
future state of existence ? No, he takes it for granted him- 
self ; and, as lie well knows your prejudices, he presumes 
that you will receive his bare assertion as positive proof. 

I have been waiting for him to give you his powerful 
arguments ; but instead of producing them, he tells you that 
he is afraid he will not have time, and if not, you will 
know the reason. I agree with him, my hearers, that you 
will know the reason, which is, he has nothing stronger to 
give you. — He may have as much time as he pleases if he 
will make the arrangements with the Trustees. 

It is not necessary for him to say any thing more about 
the meaning of certain Greek words, thereby endeavour- 
ing to prove the eternity of the duration of punishment in 
another state, till he has first proved that there will be 
punishment there: if he can do this, let him take a text, 
any one he pleases, and not take the bare word alone, and 
from the text prove that there is a place of endless punish- 
ment. 

My opponent quoted a passage from Rev. xix. 10, where 
the messenger of God, or the angel of God, appeared to 
John, who fell at his feet to worship him : Did this messen- 
ger suffer it? No, he forbid it, and said, " See thou do it 
not :" this passage was brought by my opponent to prove 
that when Onesimus was servant to Philemon and Paul 
sent him back, Paul meant that Philemon was to receive 
him as one who would be his brother and fellow servant 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOff. 257 

in eternity ; but how does it prove it? Paul surely was not 
speaking of tilings of an eternal nature. — John had such 
reverence for this celestial messenger, that he fell at his 
feet to worship him, hut he forbid it, and told him to wor- 
ship God. Now, if my opponent will look at the passage 
again, he will perceive that the messenger of God was no 
less than Christ himself, both from what goes before and 
what follows after, (see Rev. i. 12 — 18, xxii. 9, 12, IS, 
16,) and yet this messenger would not suffer John to wor- 
ship him. Now, could John understand that God, whom 
he was directed to worship, was the person at whose feet he 
fell down to worship, and who said, " See thou do it not?" 
And who also said, " Behold I come quickly and my re- 
ward is with me 1 am Alpha and Omega, &c. V 9 All 

this is applicable to the messenger who directed John to 
" worship God.' 5 The fact is, Jesus was the messenger 
of God, as John was the messenger of Jesus, who was sent 
to publish these things to the seven churches of Asia. — 
Now, did Paul wish Philemon to receive Onesimus with 
the same degree of reverence as John did this messenger? 
No, my opponent did not understand it so : it appears to 
me, he only wanted to lead your minds from the subject. 

Even if Paul spake with any reference to the life of the 
saints in another world, all that I understand he meant by 
the aionion, is, that he was to receive Onesimus as one, 
who, with himself, was a partaker of the aionion (eternal) 
life : and all that I understand to be meant by this eternal 
life, is what has been stated to us by the lips of that man 
who never deceived any : he says, John xvii, 5, " And this 
is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus 
Christ whom thou hast sent." Whoever possesses this 
knowledge, therefore, possesses life eternal, and whoever 
is ignorant of it, has it not : and if the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ be the only true god, I ask, is the Son 
the true God? 

My opponent slanders Unitarians because they believe 
what Jesus taught them. If Jesus Christ did not preach 
Unitarianism, 1 do not know what he did preach : certain 
I am that he preached the only Unitarianism that I be- 
lieve ; and it was for preaching this that the Jews took up 
stones to stone him, (John x. 31.) He says, John xiv. 28, 
" My Father is greater than I." Again, « I came not to 
do mine own will, but the will of him th&t sent me," (John 
vi. 28.) Again, " I ascend unto my Father and to your 
Father, to my God and your God," (John xx, If.)" - ** 

33 



258 Ttheologicai. discussiqx. 

Now, my hearers, this is the very Unitarianism that I be- 
lieve, and what Jesus Christ taught. This is the doctrine 
which was held by Drs. Priestly and Lardner, whose 
names have been used so feelingly. 

The observations which my opponent made on that pas- 
sage of Paul, (2 Cor. iv. 17,) " For our light affliction, 
&c." was only time ill spent. He tried to make some cri- 
ticisms on this text ; but to what do they amount ? Admit- 
ting all he says to be true, (which it is evident the apostle 
did not mean,) what docs it make either in favour of his 
argument or against mine ? It is nothing more than what 
has been admitted in relation to eternal life. Though I 
doubt much if light afflictions work out for us, or even the 
saints, eternal life. But after all, even admitting this, for 
the sake of accommodation, to what does it amount ? No- 
thing more than that the saints' happiness will endure to 
all eternity and about which there is no dispute. 

He says that I say David has not yet ascended into hea- 
ven, and he speaks of it as though it were very wrong. 
It is his mistake — it was not his opponent that said this, 
it was the apostle Peter ! I merely quoted his words. 
Was there any thing wrong in his saying so ? and if not 
wrong in Peter, is it wrong in me ? If I am guilty in this 
way by quoting the apostle's words, I glory in it ! there- 
fore set that down to the credit of my opponent ; that I 
acknowledge myself guilty of having used the words of 
the apostle ! 

How stands now our argument? you, my hearers, are 
to be our judges, — as far as man can judge. What has he 
gained? Has he given me any thing to which I have not re- 
plied? He says, that aionian means eternal. I admit it 
true, that it may he, and often is used in that sense : and 
must I admit it over and over again ? I have told him re- 
peatedly, that I do not dispute it. Let him make all the 
use of it he can. Grant it, and regrant it, what does it 
prove, especially when he admits that it is sometimes 
connected with things which can have but a comparative- 
ly short duration ? How then can it be shown that when 
applied to punishment, it must of necessity be absolutely 
eternal ? He may dwell upon it as long as he pleases, still 
it proves nothing,for it proves as much on the one side as on 
the other: therefore it is useless contending about it. He 
must show you a text which positively declares that the 
punishment of the wicked is absolutely eternal ; that is, 
he must prove its absolute duration from other circum- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 259 

stances, or by other terms than those which are acknow- 
ledged to he equivocal. When he can do this, his cause 
will look up again ; and if he cannot do this, his cause 
must sink. You cannot suppose my hearers, that I wish 
to be deceived any more than he does. I have the same 
interest at heart, admitting that truth alone is his object. 
My only object is to elicit truth ; and if it were said that 
I was defeated on every point, I would rejoice if truth 
should be the result: if therefore the truth of his doctrine 
can be proved, I hope my opponent will do it : and I will 
immediately renounce my error when convinced that I am 
in one. It is truth and that alone that 1 feel concerned about, 
and not the giving up of erroneous opinions if I hold them. 
But if he shall fail to do this, I hope in the final conclusion 
of this discussion, that it will redound to the knowledge 
of truth itself, and to the glory of Almighty God. And I 
cherish the hope that I shall be able to prove to the under- 
standing of all present that "the Lord is good unto all, and 
that his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. cxlv. 
9.) And as you are included in *' all his works," is there 
any present who is not the work of his hands ? Then I hope 
that in all your trials and afflictions in this life his tender 
mercies may be over you. — This is the Universal ist's 
doctrine ; now do you think, my hearers, that it could do 
you any possible harm ? — 



1 1 o'clock. 

Mr. JPCalla. — I thank the Trustees for the privilege they 
have given me of using their house so long, and I thank my 
opponent for having given me to understand to whom I am 
indebted for this favour, as well as how long I shall be per- 
mitted to enjoy it. As however I do not possess the good things 
of this life, and have no church of my own, I shall endea- 
vour to get through in the time allotted me. And although 
I may not have the learning of my opponent to make con- 
verts of you all, yet I hope he will give me the crumbs 
which fall from his table ; and whether my cause looks up 
or not, I hope, through my prayers and the prayers of 
God's children, to convince many who are present of those 
sacred truths which I am advocating. 

But, I would ask, what does the looking tip mean? Does 
it mean looking over a plain, as my opponent wishes you 
to understand by a level ? We are told that the rich man 



£60 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

lifted up his eyes, being in torments ! Now my opponent 
says, it was all represented as being on a level, and I sup- 
pose were we to have his interpretation of the passage 
according to his idea of its referring to the earth, we 
should have a literal gulf, as though a little gulf of wa- 
ter is the only gulf that can be meant by our Lord in 
this account. There can be no doubt but those who are 
u tormented in the flame," would like to have a little gulf 
of water near them, to "cool their parched tongues." How 
important it is, my friends, that a man, to see spiritual 
things as they are, should be instructed by the spirit of 
Ood : for a natural man can not see them. We might as 
well say that God sees with eyes like ours, as to expect a 
man who is not spiritually minded to see spiritual things. 
But even in a political sense it would be understood very 
differently. What means a gulf between two countries? 
Does it mean a narrow sheet of water ? No, it means a 
difference of interests, of feelings and of views. So in re- 
lation to this gulf. If it were a gulf of water, they might 
build a bridge over it. But this will never be done, for it 
is declared to be an "impassable gulf," which cannot be 
got over. I have been requested to notice his sophistry 
in relation to this passage, or I should have let it pass, 
knowing it could make but little impression on your minds. 
He has repeatedly said that I have wasted my time: it is 
for you to determine whether I have done so or not. It is 
very natural for him to say that time is wasted which is 
consumed in proving from the scriptures what he does not 
wish to have proved ; namely, the truth of that doctrine 
which teaches, that the sinner will be punished to an ab- 
solute eternity. He has said that he is willing to admit the 
truth of all the passages which I have quoted. He has 
admitted this one word aionion, when used in connexion 
with things which in themselves must endure to all eterni- 
ty in the sense in which I understand this term. Would 
he have admitted this if he had not been convinced that I 
am correct ? No. But he has admitted it because he now 
knows it means eternal. Lest he should wish to retract 
what he has acknowledged, I will refer to the texts where 
this term is used in the connexion, that is, in relation to 
the duration of the saints' happiness, where he admits it 
to be eternal : and if we find the same term in connexion 
with punishment, you yourselves must judge whether it 
does not mean an eternal punishment. There are many 
passages in the sacred writings bearing directly on this 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. L 26l 

point, such as (1 John, iii. 15,) "Whosoever hateth his 
brother is a murderer : and ye know that no murderer 
hath (aionion) eternal life abiding in him." Here it means 
that he has not that spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus 
abiding in him. Again, in another passage, (Jude 21,) 
"Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy 
of our Lord Jesus Christ unto (aionion) eternal life." 
Did the apostle mean here only a temporal life ? Again, 
(Matt. xix. 29,) "And everyone that hath forsaken hou- 
ses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, 
or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an 
hundred-fold, and shall inherit (aionion) everlasting life." 
Does this mean a temporal life only ? Can our Lord have 
meant that after having given up every blessing and com- 
fort of a temporal nature, even to the separating of ourselves 
from our nearest natural connexions, we are only to be 
rewarded with temporal life, which the sinner enjoys in 
common with the saints ? Again, (John iii. 16) " For God 
so loved the world that he gave his only begotten, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
aionion life." Now if this does not mean everlasting life 
what use is there in the expression ? for a man may believe 
on the Lord Jesus and yet perish at last ! Again, (John iii. 
36.) " He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life : 
and he that believeth not the son, shall not see life : but 
the wrath of God abideth on him." What life is this the 
unbeliever is not to see ? It can not mean temporal life. 
Again, (John iv. 36,) " And he that reapeth receiveth wa- 
ges, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal : that both he that 
soweth, and he that reapeth, may rejoice together." Again, 
(John v. £4,) "He that heareth my word, and believeth 
on him that sent me, hath aionian life." My opponent in 
his translation says, it does not mean everlasting life, it 
only means temporal. If it does not mean everlasting life 
which the hearer, that is if he is a believer, possesses, he 
may eventually perish. Again, (John vi. 27,) " Labour 
not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which 
endureth unto aionian life, which the Son of man shall 
give unto you : for him hath God the Father sealed." Now 
if this does not mean everlasting life, it will be labour not 
for the meat which perisheth, but labour for the meat which 
perisheth, which would be a palpable absurdity. Again, 
(John vi. 47,) " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that 
believeth on me hath everlasting (aionian) life." Again, 
(John vi. 54,) " Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my 



262 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

blood, hath eternal life." Again, Peter says, (John vi. 68,) 
"To whom shall we go? thou hast the word of (aionian) 
eternal life." The scriptures say to those who believe (1. 
John ii. 14,) "The word of God abideth in you, and ye have 
overcome the wicked one." Again, (John x. 27,) " My 
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow 
me : and I give unto them (aionian) eternal life ; and 
they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out 
of my hand." Again, (John xii. 25,) "He that loveth his 
life shall lose it ; and he that hateth his life in this world, 
shall keep it unto life eternal: 99 that is, in the world which 
has no end. Again, (John xii. 50,) " And I know that 
his commandment is life everlasting," aionian life. Again, 
( John xvii. 2,) "As thou hast given him power over all 
flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou 
hast given him." In the verse immediately following this, 
my opponent admits that it means eternal life in its ful- 
lest extent, " And this is life eternal to know thee the on- 
ly true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." A- 
gain, (Acts xiii. 48,) "And as many as were ordained un- 
to eternal (aionian) life, believed." Again, (Rom. ii. 7,) 
" To them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek 
for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternal life." 
Here the apostle has given us full satisfaction that it can- 
not mean temporal life, for he is speaking of immortal life, 
or life after death, it must therefore necessarily mean ab- 
solutely eternal. Again, (Rom. v. 21,) " That as sin hath 
reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through 
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." 
Now here you will percieve that the reign of sin is unto 
death, but the reign of righteousness is not. Again, (Rom. 
vi. 22, 23,) " But now being made free from sin, and be- 
come servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, 
and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; 
but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ 
our Lord." Again, (Gal. vi. 7, 8,) "Be not decieved : 
God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth that 
shall he also reap. For he that soweth to the flesh, shall 
of the flesh reap corruption: but he that soweth to the spirit 
shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." Why did not the 
apostle tell us we should by sowing to the spirit reap tempo- 
ral life? Because he knew that eternal life would be thefruit 
of the spirit. Again, the apostle says, in his first epistle 
to Timothy, (i. 16,) " Howbeit for this cause I obtained 
mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 263 

long- suffering, for a pattern to them which should here- 
after believe on him to life everlasting.'* Again, he charges 
his son Timothy, (1 Tim. vi. 12,) " Fight the good fight 
of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also 
called, and hast professed a good profession before many 
witnesses." 

The apostle did not surely mean that he was to lay hold 
of a temporal life, nor the good things of it : for in the 
preceding verses he has been charging him to give up all 
and every thing else to lay hold on eternal life. This is 
neither, in the subjunctive mood nor in the imperative, but 
in the potential, implying that it may be laid hold of by 
those who will believe and seek after it. Once more, (Ti- 
tus i. 2,) " According to the faith of God's elect, and the 
acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness: in 
hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie promised 
before the world began." This is the faith of the chris- 
tian, which giveth to us the hope of eternal life according 
to the promise made unto us by our Lord Jesus Christ, (I 
John, ii. 25,) "And this is the promise that he hath promis- 
ed us even eternal life." I presume my opponent will 
admit another passage and this was written by the apos- 
tle to believers only. (I John v. 11, 13,) "And this is 
the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this 
is in his son." My opponent will not deny that it is eter- 
nal life, that is here meant, and observe it is said express- 
ly that it isaionian life, therefore he admits that this aio- 
nian life is not a temporal one. "He that hath the son 
hath life, and he that hath not the son of God hath not life. 
These things have I written unto you that believe on the 
name of the son of God : that ye may know that ye have 
eternal life, and that ve may believe on the name of the 
Son of God." 

There are seventy-one passages in the New Testament 
in which this word occurs, and we have proved that in all 
those passages where it is used except those few where it 
relates to punishment it means absolutely eternal or a du- 
ration which shall never have an end. Shall we then say, 
when we find it used sixty-two times, that it means an ab- 
solutely eternal state of happiness, and when we find it in 
a few places in connexion with punishment say that it does 
not mean an equal duration of misery merely because the 
new translation says it does not ? This is contrary to com- 
mon sense, and to every criterion by which the meaning 
of a word is established. Who does not know that the 



264 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

meaning of a word is established by the sense in which it 
is most frequently used ? This is the criterion by which 
we judge of its meaning ; but we have now anew criterion 
given us by these learned translators, the very reverse of 
the former, which is a gross error in relation to the sacred 
word of God, and contrary to all the learned rules of cri- 
ticism. It may answer very well for those few who wish 
to pervert the truths of God into a Parable, but no chris- 
tion will believe it, it is too great an absurdity, for it is 
neither literal, medical nor theological. What becomes 
then of my opponent's complaint that I waste the time by 
not coming to the point? We say that we have come to 
the point ; we have proved by the word of God, and by 
every established rule of criticism, that this term means 
absolutely eternal, as well in the few places where it is 
applied to punishment as in the sixty-two places where it 
is applied to happiness ; and we hope to prove to your 
satisfaction, when we come to those passages which we 
have already noticed as positive evidence, that it has the 
same extent of meaning when applied to the duration of 
the punishment of the wicked in Hell. Heb. vi. 2. " Of 
the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and 
of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment** 9 

My opponent has told you in his Lectures, (page 206,} 
66 Because God has power to destroy, it does not necessa- 
rily follow that he will. 99 As I have not time to attend to 
such little quibbles, I shall give you the plain declarations 
of scripture. — Jude 6, 7, M And the angels which kept not 
their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has re- 
served in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judg- 
ment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, 
and the cities about them in like manner giving themselves 
over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set 
forth for an exampel, suffering the vengeance of eternal 
(aioniaii) fire." Here is the same word used in connexion 
with punishment that is used to imply the absolute eterni- 
ty of the happiness of the saints, but my opponent will not 
admit to have the same unlimited signification. He says, 
(Lectures p.207,) "It is the doctrine of the schools," hedoes 
not admit it to be the doctrine of the scriptures, though 
contained in them, that the people of Sodom and Go- 
morrah are still suffering the fire of Hell. Nevertheless, it 
is very evident, that no other fire was alluded to than the 
fire by which those cities were destroyed : which fire it is 
said from good authority lasted upwards of two thousand 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 26.5 

years, (and of course was burning in the days of the apos- 
tles f) but is now extinct !" Here he alludes only to the 
lake Asphaltites, the fire of which being out cannot mean 
aionian fire, for it is directly contrary to the meaning of 
that term ; but he says we cannot understand any thing 
from the exigence of the place, (he said exigency of the place) 
where they are said to be set forth for an example, suffer- 
ing the vengeance of aionian fire, but that the fire alluded 
to could be no other than that by which those cities were 
destroyed : but it would have been well for him to have 
observed that they are set forth as yet suffering the venge- 
ance and not as having suffered it* He will perhaps tell 
you, that they could not suffer this vengeance now, as they 
were put to death, and there is an end of them, and there- 
fore it cannot last as a place of punishment to them longer 
than their lifetime ; and yet he will tell you that this word 
aionian when used in connexion with the happiness of the 
saints means an absolute eternity ! But those wjjp deny 
the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ will deny any other 
truths contained in the scriptures. I do not mean to enter 
on the subject of Unitarian ism now, but should it please 
God to ■restore me to health, when I get better and can 
procure a house in which 1 shall not be at my opponent's 
mercy, nor be liable to be ordered out when they wish to 
stop, my mouth, he is such a PriestJian man that I shall 
have no objection to enter the list with him on that ground. 
He talks a great deal about Materialism, dwelling upon 
that passage of Peter, (Acts ii. 34,) "For David is not 
ascended into the heavens;" you will observe that there is 
a wide difference between my opponent's opinion and Pe- 
ter's. Peter evidently meant that the body of David had 
not yet ascended into the heavens, but my opponent and 
other Materialists believe that neither his body nor soul 
is there. But to return. 

Paul says, 2. Thess. i. 9, "Who shall be punished with 
everlasting (aionian) destruction from the presence of the 
Lord and from the glory of his power-" There you will 
perceive that the scriptures do not speak of them as being 
at such a distance from God that he cannot see them : it 
will be in his presence. I am astonished at those who 
make so light of these important truths : when the word 
of God is so full of proof upon the subject representing 
God as taking vengeance on his enemies, and proof that 
he will punish them himself. " Vengeance is mine, I will 
repay saith the Lord." (Rom. xii. 19.) my friends ! the 

54 



S66' THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

falling of rocks and mountains will be nothing compared' 
to the awful terrors of divine vengeance : nor the yawn- 
ing of gulfs to receive us ; nor the hissing of devils and 
their friends ; all, all, will be as nothing if God only keep 
his vengeance from us. It is his presence, it is the fiery 
glory of his presence, that shall consume us, and prey up- 
on our vitals forever ! This, this, is what makes Hell so 
dreadful — so dreadful that our Lord hath said, Matt, xviii. 
9, " If thy hand or thy foot offend thee cut it off and cast 
them from thee : it is better for thee to enter into life halt 
or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to 
be cast into everlasting fire." And this aionian or ever- 
lasting fire is declared to be unquenchable, Mark ix. 43, 
where the same language is used with this addition, that 
their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched ; and 
Matt. iii. 12, "He will gather bis wheat, but burn up the 
chaff with unquenchable fire." I shall not speak of the 
nature^pf this element, it is sufficient for us to know that 
it is something so dreadful that we can form no idea of 
its horrors whether it be a material fire or not, and we 
know whatever it is, it is to be the portion of unbelievers, 
to all eternity, while believers will enjoy aionian or eter- 
nal happiness. Matt. xxv. 34, "Then shall the King say 
unto them on his right hand, (that is believers,) Come ye 
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for 
you from the foundation of the world." Now mark the 
contrast. " Then shall he say also unto them on the left 
hand, (that is unbelievers,) Depart from me ye cursed 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his an- 
gels." "And these shall go away into aionian, everlasting 
punishment, but the righteous, into life (aionian) eternal." 
Now here is the very same word used in connexion with 
the punishment of the wicked that is used in connexion 
with the happiness of the righteous ; if therefore the one 
signifies an absolute eternity which my opponent admits, 
why will he not admit the other ? Because he does not 
wish it : it does not agree with his new translation. Here 
then is another passage where the same word being used 
which from the exigence of the place, it proves the doc- 
trine of eternal punishment : and that all these passages 
refer to a future state of existence. Besides these passa- 
ges, which of themselves prove the doctrine to be correct, 
I have given you others, such as Daniel xii. 2, 3, which 
prove that it does take place after death. It is not ne- 
cessary to repeat the passages, you have heard them oftea 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 267 

enough, and I think must be convinced that they refer to 
a state after death at the resurrection, when the soul will 
be united to the body. And this judgment which is spo- 
ken of is to be over the dead when they are to be raised. 
What, I would ask, do you call a resurrection, but the 
raising of the dead to life. 

Thus we have gone through the argument which we 
proposed in support of the doctrine of the absolutely eter- 
nal punishment of the wicked. We hope soon to get to 
that part of our argument called refutation, when we shall 
take notice of the arguments which have been brought 
against the doctrine by the most respectable of the oppo- 
site party, by men who have displayed some talent in de- 
fence of the erroneous opinions which they hold ; we will, 
therefore, not notice the futile, miserable arguments of my 
opponent, which are but the arguments of a mere child 
compared to others who hold the same doctrine ! I shall 
not, then, derive that benefit from my notes which some 
pretend to think I do, but will select the most powerful ar- 
guments from their writings and consider them. 

I have now gone through my argument by Inference* 
from the attributes of God and the helpless condition of 
man without the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit. 
2d, By Contrast. 3d, By Implication. 4th, By Nega- 
tion. And 5th, by the positive declarations of the scrip- 
tures, wherein it is clearly shown that the wicked shall 
have their portion in the mists of darkness for ever; and 
in the last 15 passages the expressions are, that they are 
to have reserved to them the blackness of darkness for 
ever, where they will be tormented with fire and brimstone 
in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of 
the Lamb ; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up 
for ever and ever ; that they shall awake to endless confu- 
sion, to everlasting shame and contempt ; and finally go 
away into everlasting damnation prepared for the devil 
and his children. 

These passages are not made by myself, my friends, nor 
are they perverted to suit my opinions, but they are col- 
lected from the sacred scriptures, and there this punish- 
ment, or torment, is said to be for ever, and for ever and 
ever, perpetual, everlasting, by the strongest terms which 
can be found in our language to convey the idea of end- 
less duration ; and by a term in the original, w 7 hich in 
every other instance, is admitted by my opponent to mean 
an absolute eternity, though he denies the same meaning tp 



268 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

the same word in the same place where it is used in con- 
nexion with punishment. I shall, therefore, take no no- 
tice of his inconsistency, hut will give you the opinions of 
those Universalists who put some shadow of truth on their 
arguments. 

There is one of the remarks which he has used against 
the doctrine of eternal punishment as applying to the ele- 
ment of fire, which, as nothing has heen said concerning 
it* I will just notice before I proceed to answer the argu- 
ments of Dr. Chauncey. — When my opponent says sin is 
to be burned up, he forgets what he has previously told us 
in his Lectures, (perhaps he does not wish to remember 
it,) that sin is a mere negation, a mere nothing. I should 
like to know how he can burn nothing. Can you burn no- 
thing ? Yet he says that it is the sins, which are nothing, 
that are to he consumed, and the authors of those sins are 
to escape ! ! ! 



Hi o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — It is of very little consequence what my 
opponent thinks of the arguments of his opponent, or of 
my conduct ; nor is it a matter of any importance what I 
may think of his : the evidence which has been adduced 
on each side is all before you, and it is you, my hearers, 
who are to judge of its effects upon your minds. As to 
his calling any thing which I may say, an absurdity, you, 
as well as myself, must be convinced that his calling it so 
does not make it so: nor, were I to call much that he has 
advanced by a more severe name than an absurdity, it 
would not make it so. Besides, I should think it was 
wasting your time and abusing the common sense of this 
audience by anticipating your judgment. It is you who 
are to be the judges of what has been advanced in the pre- 
sent controversy, and of the circumstances and manner in 
which they have been advanced, and not your speakers to 
judge for you. 

My opponent has again brought before you the subject 
of the gulf which is represented as being between the rich 
man and Lazarus, and seems to think it is such a difficult 
passage that it firmly establishes his doctrine. But, as I 
before observed, I do not view it as having any bearing 
upon the subject in discussion whatever. I should, how- 
ever, be perfectly willing to go into this parable if it 



THE010GICA1 DISCUSSION. 269 

would help to bring this debate to a point; but I cannot 
see that it would do so : it would only be carrying you 
away from the main point of positive testimony to attend 
to a parable. — I still call it a parable, because I am justi- 
fied in doing so by the authority to which my opponent him- 
self has often appealed: — I mean the translators : — they call 
it a parable in my bible; and in the one which I have now 
before me it speaks of it as " the parable of the rich man 
and Lazarus." Now here is as good authority, and the 
only authority my opponent has for calling the parable of 
the sheep and goats, in the 25th chapter of Matthew, "the 
description of the last judgment ;" namely, the contents of 
the chapter, as given by the translators. Now, he con- 
tends for the correctness of the one, though it has nothing 
else to support it, yet denies the truth of the other, when 
its truth is so very obvious. Jf, therefore, it is a mistake 
in calling it a parable, the fault does not lie with me, nor 
can he charge me with being guilty of a perversion of scrip- 
ture in this instance, at any rate, as I have only called the 
account what the translation, which he so much approves, 
has called it. But suppose it were an historical fact, and 
every thing that my opponent wishes it, what does it prove 
in favour of his doctrine of the absolutely eternal punish- 
ment of the wicked ? It will not prove any thing for him. 
He says that the rich man was in torment. Grant it, for 
the present, if you please ; and we will grant, also, that it 
was in Hell, arid that Hell is in the invisible world, and in 
ihe abode of the damned, in a place separate from the spi- 
rits of the just; grant all this ! Then what does it prove? 
What is made out from it which can be construed as fa- 
vourable to his doctrine? Is there anything said about 
how long he is to remain in this state of torment, in this 
Hell of my opponent ? No : not one word, — there is not a 
syllable in the whole account of its being an endless state 
of torment ! How then does it make any thing in favour 
of the doctrine of eternal punishment? Neither is the tor- 
ment represented of such an excruciating nature as my op- 
ponent wishes to prove it. It is said that he prayed 
"Abraham to send Lazarus that he might dip the tip of 
his finger in water and cool his tongue." Is this, I ask, 
all history ? Have we any evidence that we shall have li- 
teral water in another world ? And yet he prays that La- 
zarus may be sent to dip the tip of his finger in water to 
cool his parched tongue in the invisible world ! All this is 
to take place in the invisible world, according to my op- 



270 THEOLOGICAL DISCUS SIOX. 

ponent, among departed spirits, while their bodies rest in 
the grave, and yet Lazarus has his fingers, and the rich 
man has his tongue with him! Can this be history ? Can 
it be a literal fact? No, my hearers, it is all a parable; it 
is highly figurative language which lias no bearing on our 
subject even in his own way ; — and so is the remainder of 
it: for by the gulf, as we understand this subject, it signi- 
fies nothing more than the gulf of opinion which stands be- 
tween the two dispensations, the Mosaic and the Christian; 
which is as great a gulf as exists between my opponent 
and me. >Ve have reason to believe, from the connexion, 
that the Jew was in a state of torment, and when he found 
that he could not have Lazarus come unto him, he prayed 
Abraham that he would send some one to his father's 
house, stating that he had five brethren whom he wished, 
to escape the same torment; and Abraham says, they have 
Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them. Did the 
rich man believe that they would hear Moses and the pro- 
phets? No : for he says, "Nay, father Abraham, but if 
one went unto them from the dead they will repent." Now, 
what was the answer he received ? " If they hear not Mo- 
ses and the prophets neither will they be persuaded though 
one rose from the dead." Now, this is the very language 
which Jesus Christ himself used when addressing the Jews; 
he says, (John v. 46, 47,) " For had ye believed Moses, 
ye w^Quld have believed me : for he wrote of me. But if 
ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my 
words?" Now, where did Moses write of the Messiah? 
You will find it in Deut. xviii. 15—18, " The Lord will 
raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy 
brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken ; accord- 
ing to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Ho- 
rcb, in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear 
again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see 
this great fire any more, that 1 die not. And the Lord 
said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have 
spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their 
brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his 
mouth ; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall com- 
mand him." This account Peter applies to Jesus, Acts 
iii. 22, "For Moses truly said unto the Fathers, A pro- 
phet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your 
brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things 
whatsoever he shall say unto you." Also Stephen, Acts 
vii. 37, " This is that Moses which said unto the children 



THEOXOGICAX BISCTTSSIOK. 17 1 

of Israel, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up un- 
to you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear." 
If Jesus, then, was the Messiah, or the Christ, he was a 
Jew, of the brethren and stock of Israel. Hence, he who 
rose from the dead was "the man of whom Moses and the 
prophets did write," (John i. 45 :) and until you can con- 
vince a Jew that Jesus Christ, who was raised by the 
power of God from the dead, is the promised Messiah of 
whom Moses and the prophets wrote, this impassable gulf 
will exist between them and you. When you can persuade 
a Jew to believe this, the difficulty will be removed. — 
When they believe this, there will be no gulf between them 
and Christians: but I would ask you, my hearers, how 
long will it take you to persuade a Jew into the belief that 
his fathers put to death the God of Abraham? — And yet 
this is the belief of those who term themselves orthodox 
christians in our days. This is another impassable gulf 
and a still greater, if it be possible, than existed before : 
and this is one impassable gulf that exists between my op- 
ponent and me. Therefore, I say that the account of the 
rich man and Lazarus appears to me to have no relation 
to the subject of future happiness or misery whatever, but 
merely refers to the differences existing between the Jew- 
ish and Christian dispensations ; and so long as those dif- 
ferences of opinion exist, so long will this impassable gulf 
exist, and no longer. Another impassable gulf was in the 
difference of their ministrations : the Jews had been taught 
by Moses and the prophets to look for every good in this 
life, as a reward of their obedience ; and also every evil, 
as a punishment for their sins. Thus, Deut. xxx. 19, "I 
call heaven and earth to witness this day against you, that 
I have set before you life and death, blessmg and cursing, 
therefore choose life, that both thee and thy seed may live."" 
The Christian, on the other hand, preached salvation by 
Jesus Christ, which gives the believer a hope that is full 
of immortality. The Jew wished to receive the good 
things which Lazarus the believing Gentile was enjoying, 
and prayed that Lazarus might he sent to him : but Abra- 
ham said that he could not come, because that you do not 
believe in the salvation by him of whom Moses and 
the prophets wrote, and who hath risen from the dead. 
This, my hearers, I believe to be the impassable gulf. 

It has been said by my opponent, and \ery truly, for it 
is the language of the scripture, that " no murderer hath 
eternal life abiding in him," (1 John iii. 15.) He has al- 



2*2 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

so told you that we believe the very reverse of this decla- 
ration : now, I wish to know if he heard me say so? Did 
you ever hear me say so? John says, he that hath hatred 
in him is not in possession of eternal life. " Whoso ha- 
teth his brother is a murderer, and no murderer hath eter- 
nal life abiding in him." Indeed, it cannot be that he who 
hateth his brother can have eternal life abiding in him ! 
We admit that as long as these passions are indulged you 
cannot have eternal life : for hatred and love are directly 
opposite in their effects. Eternal life is eternal love, 
which is directly opposed to eternal hatred : and to know 
God is declared to be this eternal life. Now, God is love. 
Therefore, he who possesses eternal life must possess love 
and not anger; and he who dwelleth in love dwelleth in 
God and God in him. (John xvii. 3,) "And this is life 
eternal, to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ 
whom thou hast sent." 

My opponent has stated the texts in his own order, and 
he thinks that the bare statement of these texts, without 
taking them in their proper connexion, proves his doc- 
trine ; even without any argument to prove his interpre- 
tation of them correct. But he may go on to understand 
them in his own way, or in the way that some one has 
marked out for him ; for he gives you nothing in connexion 
with the subject but what he reads from his little book, 
and the moment he departs from it, it is to misrepresent 
the opinions of his opponent, either to prejudice your 
minds or to excite your laughter. 

He says, this is life eternal, to believe on the name of 
the Son of God. This is entirely a mistake of his. The 
scriptures declare this to be life eternal, " to know thee the 
only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," 
and not that to believe on him is life eternal : but we are 
told to believe on the name of the Son of God that we 
may know that we have eternal life, (1 John v. 13.) 

As you, my hearers, are to be the judges of the weight 
of argument adduced on each side, I will show you the 
whole strength of his argument. He says there are sixty- 
two passages in the New Testament where the term am- 
nion is used in connexion with things which in themselves 
mean an absolute eternity of duration and there are six 
passages where it is used in connexion with punishment ; 
and, as the greater number of places in which this term is 
used means an absolute eternity, these six others must be 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 273 

governed by them and mean the same duration of existence. 
— To show you the fallacy of such reasoning, suppose the 
same term which, as my opponent says, is used to imply 
the eternity of the duration of punishment, should be found 
applied, in the scriptures, to things which are temporal, 
more frequently than it is applied to things that are eter- 
nal, then the same mode of argument which he now uses to 
prove the eternity of punishment would equally prove that 
God himself is not absolutely eternal. 

But would you recieve this as sound argument? — 
Yet this is actually the case: for in the Septuagint of the 
Old Testament, this term is more frequently applied to 
things of a temporal nature than it is to those which are 
in themselves eternal ; and although we agree in the mean- 
ing of the word, that when applied to things which 
in themselves are absolutely eternal, it signifies an end- 
less duration, and vice versa ; yet does it follow that 
if we find it used in a majority of passages in connexion 
with things that are in themselves of a temporal nature 
that God is not absolutely eternal, or that the happiness 
of the saints will not continue to an absolute eternity ? No, 
my hearers, lie would not admit this himself any more 
than you or I. Then, to what does his argument amount ? 
What has he proved by it in favour of his doctrine ? No- 
thing. Has this reasoning of his brought him any nearer 
to the point in your minds? I can answer for myself: it 
lias not in mine. 

According to the mode of reasoning here adopted by 
my opponent, it would be impossible to prove that the 
God, of whom Moses wrote, was any thing more than a 
temporal God ! ! This would completely turn the table, 
and shows that frequency of use does not determine the 
meaning of an equivocal term ; for whether such terms be 
used few or many times in a certain sense depends entire- 
ly on the nature of the subjects most frequently treated up- 
on. Hence, as the Old Testament treats of things of a 
temporal nature more frequently than of eternal, these 
words are there found more frequently used in that sense; 
but in the New Testament it is not so ; for that treats of 
things of an eternal nature, as life (that is, eternal life) 
and immortality are brought to light through the gospel : 
hence, the word aionion is here more frequently used in an 
absolute sense. 

My opponent also says that Sodom and Gomorrah, and the 
cities about them, "are set forth for an example, suffering the 

35 



274 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

vengeance of aionion fire." He made some remarks upon 
the notice I have taken, in my Lectures, on this passage. 
Now, I have not given them upon my own authority, but 
upon the authority of Dr. Whitby, who says, as quoted 
by Scarlett, " This fire lasted from Abraham's time till 
after the apostolic age ; and was burning in the time of 
Philo Judseus, the beginning of the second century." See 
note in Lectures p. 207. — My opponent contends that it is 
not the literal fire which consumed the bodies of the inha- 
bitants of those cities which is here meant by this passage 
in the scriptures, and asks you if their bodies could be 
meant, after they were consumed, when it is said, "suffer- 
ing the vengeance of (aionion) eternal fire ?" The truth is, 
the term aionion is not connected with the suffering which 
they endured, but with the fire which destroyed them. — 
The adjective aionion belongs to the noun fire, and the fire 
may endure for ages after it ceases to operate as a pun- 
ishment, or to cause pain to the sufferer : yea, the fire may 
exist long after the sufferer of it has ceased to exist. Be- 
sides, it is said to be set forth as an example to others, 
that they may avoid a similar fate. Now, I ask you, my 
hearers, admitting the meaning my opponent attaches to 
it were true, can that which takes, place in an invisible 
world be an example to those who exist here, and who 
have never seen any thing of it, nor any who came from 
thence ? — It is said to be set forth : of course it must be 
something that is brought into view, and not that which is 
hidden. — The apostle says, (2 Peter ii. 6,) " And turning 
the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned 
them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto 
those that after should live ungodly." Now, I ask, what 
fire was set forth as an example to other nations who 
should afterwards live ungodly? Could it be the fire of 
my opponent's Hell in another world which was set forth 
as an example to those who should live here as the inha- 
bitants of Sodom and Gomorrah ? No, my hearers, it was 
the fire which destroyed those cities and continued to the 
days of the apostle, which is here meant. — Ask any Jew, 
if there be one present, or any Hebrew scholar, if the fire 
did not continue long enough to be called aionion fire, in 
the sense in which the Jews ever understood that term, 
and he would tell you that the term was frequently .applied 
in the scriptures to signify a much shorter period than 
two thousand years. Now, if my opponent can show that 
thai fire which destroyed those cities never failed, or that 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. £75 

it was never seen, or that it was not an example to other 
nations which lived wickedly, he will indeed do some- 
thing ; but this, I think, he will not attempt to do. Or if 
he can show that any other fire, or any other punishment 
of the Sodomites, is set forth as an example, he will do 
something towards supporting his argument. 

He has also said, concerning David, that it was not his 
spirit, which Peter meant had not yet ascended, but his bo- 
dy. In this he is just about as correct as he is in other 
things. His memory must certainly be very treacherous: 
for whenever he goes from his little paper book, he either 
misrepresents my statements or misquotes scripture. — I 
am sorry to hurt his feelings, but he has given us such a 
specimen of his total disregard for mine, that I think he 
ought at least to be reminded when he is incorrect himself. 
If you will read the passage, (Acts ii. 34,) you will find 
that Peter says not one word about the body of David as- 
cending into heaven, neither does he speak at all of the 
spirit ; " For David is not ascended into the heavens : but 
he saith himself, ' The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou 
on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool/ 
Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that 
God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, 
both Lord and Christ." We are told that the word Lord 
which is here used, means Jehovah ; if so, I ask, who made 
him Lord and Christ? — Tell a body of Israelites that it 
was Jehovah who was slain, and see if " three thousand 
souls will be pricked in their hearts." Make the Jews be- 
lieve, if you can, that their fathers crucified him who was 
their Lord and God ! When you have done this, you will 
have made proselytes of them, but till you have done it, 
they will remain strictly Unitarians. 

Now does this account of Peter's say, that David's body 
had not yet ascended ? No : it says, " David is not yet as- 
cended." Then what authority has my opponent for al- 
tering it ? — Man is but man, and if you take soul and bo- 
dy and all that belongs to him, still a man is but a man. 
The body is not a man without the spirit, neither is the 
spirit a man without the body : you may talk about any 
one as much as you please, you always talk about all that 
is required to constitute that one being. If you say that 
you have a friend who is a very good man, or a very kind, 
virtuous, and affectionate husband, or a good father, would 
you mean any tiling more than that which constituted him 
the being of whom you spake, or would you mean his mere 



276 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

body? Certainly not; but when you speak of a man by 
name, you mean the man of whom you speak: then, when we 
speak of a man, we mean all of that man. Therefore, if 
Peter did not mean all of David, I do not know whether 
he meant any thing. 

My opponent seems to think that he has certainly prov- 
ed his doctrine to your satisfaction by the closing* text 
which he brings forward, (Matt. xxv. 41 — 44,) «« Depart 
from me ye cursed," &c. This, he tells you, refers to the 
judgment, or last judgment ; for which he has the same 
evidence that I have to call the account of the rich man 
and Lazarus a parable, namely, that it is written over the 
head of the chapter, "A plain representation of the iast 
judgment. " lie takes the same evidence, when it suits his 
purpose, that in me he has condemned. We have the same 
authority for one as for the other, namely, the opinion of 
the translators : but he will not always admit it; we must, 
therefore, have better evidence. I will endeavour to give 
it. and you must judge for yourselves. 

I am not willing to admit it because the translators say 
so : for what does the judgment mean ? Christ says, (v. 34,) 
" Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit," &c. I need not 
rehearse the parable, because you all recollect it. Here, 
you will observe that it is all founded on good works, but 
not one word about faith : it does not say, " Come ye bles- 
sed, &c. for ye believed," but " Come ye blessed — for — ye 
gave me meat," &c. which deeds we believe are rewarded in 
this life, where these good works are done : and he him- 
self will not admit that eternal, or immortal life is given 
as the reward of good works. If he does, what becomes 
of his creed ? — " By grace are ye saved through faith, and 
that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest 
any man should boast," (Eph. ii. 8, 9.) But if he should 
be disposed to contend that eternal life is the reward of 
works and not of faith, not as a free gift, 1 admit there 
would be more propriety to argue upon it. This, however, 
would set aside my opponent's creed as well as the doc- 
trine of the apostle Paul, (Eph. ii. 1,) "And you hath he 
quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." This 
quickening, therefore, was while they were dead. 

That you may better understand what my opponent pro- 
fesses to believe, I will read you a passage or two from his 
Confession of Faith. — Chap. iii. sec. 1, "God from all 
eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own 
will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 277 

pass." Sec. 3, and 4, " By the decree of God, for the man- 
ifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predesti- 
nated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to ever- 
lasting death. These angels and men, thus predestina- 
ted and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably 
designed ; and their number is so certain and definite, that 
it cannot be either increased or diminished." Sec. 7, 
** The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the 
unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extentieth 
or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his 
sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to or- 
dain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the 
praise of his glorious justice.' 5 Chap. ix. 3, "Man, by 
his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of 
will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation ; so, as 
a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, 
and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to con- 
vert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." Chap. x. 
sec. 1 and 2, "All those whom God hath predestinated 
unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appoint- 
ed and accepted time, effectually to call. This effectual 
call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any 
thing at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive 
therein." 

Here is a specimen of my opponent's creed, and he must 
admit as well as I, that from this state of death or inabili- 
ty, whatever it be, men are saved by pure grace alone. — 
(Eph. ii. 4,) "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his 
great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead 
in trespasses and sins, hath quickened us, together with 
Christ, (by grace are ye saved.") 

Here, then, is the doctrine on which we depend for our 
salvation, and not on mere works, however good in them- 
selves, and which never lose their reward; but, after all, we 
view God as our benefactor and not as our debtor. Take, 
then, which doctrine you please, that of the scriptures or 
that of my opponent, you are to judge between them. Again, 
God is said to give it to us, will it not, then, be a free gift ? Not 
for any good works that we have done, for that would be 
the reward of our merit, but there is to be no room to 
boast. Now, if I could get it by good works there must 
be some room for boasting. The apostle tells us express- 
ly, that it is not by works, (Rom. iii. 27,) and that boast- 
ing is excluded. 



278 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Do you not believe that God is impartial, and that he 
loves your neighbour as well as you ? Have you not rea- 
son to believe that if he is good to one he is to another ? 
Are we not all the children of one common parent ? Let 
us, then, do to each other all the good we can, that we 
may imitate that God whom we worship and adore. But 
as to those doctrines which grow out of a religion which 
teaches that some of God's intelligent offspring are to be 
the victims of his eternal vengeance, why is it not right 
for those who hold such doctrines to imitate their God 1 
Therefore, they do imitate him by pouring their vengeance 
on those who dare to differ from them. 



THBOliOGICAIi DISCUSSION. 2?9 



FRIDAY AFTERNOON. 



4 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — The remark which was made this morn« 
ing in relation to the order that should he observed during 
the remainder of this discussion is peculiarly necessary 
this afternoon, as my time is limited, and I must say all 
that I shall be permitted to say on this subject for the pre- 
sent within the limits of that time ; but I hope, God wil- 
ling, to renew the subject at some future opportunity. 

I have now come to that part of my argument called re- 
futation. I shall not notice the arguments produced by the 
advocates of the doctrine held by the Universalists, but 
my plan is to arrange the texts which they use in support 
of their doctrine, in the best possible order, and in the 
manner in which their ablest writers have used them, be- 
ginning with the weakest and ending with the strongest i 
and will show them in such a relation as shall enable me 
to produce the most powerful effect on your minds, in or- 
der to do them the fullest justice, and will help them all I 
can, for I believe they need it : I, therefore, intend to pre- 
sent them in the strongest light in which they have been, 
or can be produced, that I may neither deceive myself nor 
you, by supposing, after we have examined them, that they 
have been fully and satisfactorily answered if I had not 
done it: we shall, therefore, proceed to consider them. 

There are a number of passages which relate to the 
atonement that I shall not notice, but which I had collect- 
ed for the purpose, and a number which relate to the con- 
quests of the Redeemer, such as the one in Ps. ii. 8, where 
it says, " Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for 
thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for 
thy possession," and a number of others which relate to 
the will of God. The last of these is the only kind which 
I shall now notice. — (Ezek. xviii. 32,) " For I have no 
pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord 
God ; wherefore turn yourselves and live." (2 Peter iii, 
9,) " The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as 



£80 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

some men count slackness ; but is long-suffering to us- 
ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all 
should come to repentance. (1 Tim. ii. 3, 4,) " For this 
is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour ; 
who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the 
knowledge of the truth." These passages are the fewest in 
number, not near so numerous as the others, but as my 
time is limited I shall take the shortest way, conceiving 
that if I remove one of the principal props of their doctrine, 
which leads them to believe that it is the will of God, they 
will be disposed to admit that the others may be removed 
also. 

It is admitted that these texts are the word of God : I 
do not, therefore, wish to pervert nor to give a false co- 
louring to them to suit my own opinions, as is too frequent- 
ly done, nor do I intend to deviate in the smallest degree 
from the intention of the Holy Spirit concerning them. — 
It is admitted that God is omnipotent, and whatever lie 
wills he is able to carry into effect : but I contend that 
God's will avails nothing unless it is effected or accom- 
plished. It is, therefore, necessary for the advocates of 
universal salvation to make it appear that the salvation of 
all is the accomplishment of the divine will — to show that 
God does according to his own will, and when they have 
clone this, the next step they will have to take, is, to show 
that God will have all mankind universally to be saved. 

It is customary with my opponent to bring forth texts, 
and then, by stating the omnipotence of God, infer that his 
will must be carried into effect: thus he deceives himself 
and others into a belief that all will be saved. So far as 
he quotes these passages of scripture he is correct ; and if 
his explanation of them be consistent with the revealed 
truths contained in the word of God, no one will deny the 
doctrine of Universal Salvation. 

With regard to the will of God being carried into ef- 
fect, I agree, when we understand it in the right way ; 
but we find that the representation of the will of God as 
contained in the scriptures, is directly at variance with 
that of my opponent. Paul, in his epistle to the Ephe- 
sians, addressed to the saints which were at Ephesus, and 
the faithful in Christ Jesus, says, (Eph. i. 4, 5,) "Ac- 
cording as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation 
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame be- 
fore him in love: having predestinated us unto the adop- 
tion of children by Jesus Christ unto himself, according 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 281 

to the good pleasure of his will." These things prove the 
first stage of the syllogism to be incorrect; for the accom- 
plishment of the divine will is not in the salvation of all ; 
and they are in perfect consistence with our Confession of 
Faith, and these passages are contained in the 3d chapter 
of it. Those whom God, according to the good pleasure 
of his own will, hath elected or predestinated to himself, 
are particularly distinguished in the scriptures from all 
others of his creatures. God said to Moses, (Rom. ix. 
•15,) "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and 
I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." 
v. 18, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have 
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." So, it seems 
that he is determined to do according to the good counsel 
of iiis will at all times, which is also in perfect accordance 
with the 1st section of the 3d chapter of the Confession of 
Faith, and with the scriptures ; for the Most High, who 
ruleth in the kingdom of men, doeth according to the 
good pleasure of his will in the heavens and on the earth. 
Again, in the 2d chapter and the 2d section we use the 
same language as is used in the scriptures. Rev. iv. 11, 
" Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, 
and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy 
pleasure they are and were created," and the Confession 
says, "That he hath most sovereign dominion over all 
tilings, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatso- 
ever himself pleaseth." Here, you see upon what founda- 
tion my opponent's assertion stands, that I cannot believe 
the scriptures and my creed too, as he calls it. But do 
you not see that they agree? It is certainly very strange 
that the very doctrine which is necessary to support the 
will of God is a reproach to those who believe in it : and 
it is equally strange that this which he condemns us for 
holding, is the very doctrine on which he founds his be- 
lief. Throw away this doctrine of the sovereign will and 
pleasure of God, and he cannot produce a solitary argu- 
ment in support of his doctrine. Suppose we were to say, 
and could prove, that God wills all men to be saved, does 
it follow that all men will be saved because he willed it 
unless he can save them as an absolute sovereign ? His 
having the will would not effect it if he did not possess 
the power. We, therefore, believe, that when the Bible 
speaks in this language in relation to the will of God as 
a sovereign, it is perfectly consistent with our Confession 
of Faith, where we use the same language as the scriptures, 

36 



£82 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

My opponent does not view the will of God in the same 
sense as we do. He always looks upon the will of God, 
no matter in what sense it is used, as the will of purpose-; 
the same as that of which Isaiah speaks, (Isa. xlvi. 10,) 
" Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient 
times the things that are not yet done, saying, My coun- 
sel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Now, 
this is his will of purpose, the desire of his heart, and the 
determination of his mind ; therefore, as he is immutable, 
it must stand : for he is in one mind, savs Job, (xxiii. 13,) 
and who can turn him? And what his soul desireth even 
that he doeth." This is the will of his mind, his will of 
purpose ; but there is another will of God spoken of in the 
scriptures, and that my opponent has not noticed this, is 
manifest, and this has led him into a great error. It is 
the will of precept ; and this will of precept not being a 
will of the mind of God, is not always accomplished, as 
there is a vast difference between them. 

My opponent has quoted Macknight, who, he says, 
is opposed to his doctrine on this subject, but he has can- 
dour enough to acknowledge that he translates, Who com- 
mavdeth all men to be saved, &c. (1 Tim. ii. 6,) and not, 
who wills, &c. Now, if you interpret it that he command- 
eth all men to be saved, is it not true, and yet all men may 
not be saved because he doth not will it I You see that 
there is a real difference between them, which can only be 
made manifest by examination and comparison. Again, 
his will of precept is spoken of in Ezekiel xviii. 32, "For 

1 have no pleasure in the death of him thatdieth, saith the 
Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." Now, 
if this was the will of God that they should live, that will 
was thwarted if they died; but it is said that it was not 
the will of the Lord that they should die ; this was, there- 
fore, not the will of his purpose but the will of precept. 
God did not command them to reject him and tell them 
that they should die and not live. No : it was his will that 
they should turn from their sins and live : but did they do 
so ? No. Then, this passage proves that those whom he 
willed to live, died, consequently the will of God is not 
accomplished in the above text. How, then, does my op- 
ponent's doctrine stand upon this will of precept? Again, 

2 Peter iii. 9, " The Lord is not willing that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance." This is 
his will of precept. And in the same epistle you will find 
Ills will of purpose spoken of. "But these, as natural 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 28.3 

brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of 
the things that they understand not, and shall utterly pe> 
rish in their own corruption." This is scripture as well 
as the other; then, we see that God has not the will that 
any should perish, and yet some do utterly perish. — 
Again, 1 Cor. i. 18, «• For the preaching of the cross is to 
them that perish, foolishness ; hut unto us which are saved 
it is the power of God." — Again, in the very same pas- 
sage where it is said that he willeth not that any should 
perish but that all should come to repentance, it says, 
M they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do 
also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 
Here, then, according to the same apostle, they are not 
all to be saved. — Again, Heb. vi. 6, "For it is impossi- 
ble for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted 
of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Ho- 
ly Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the 
powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, tore- 
new them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to 
themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open 
shame :" and yet it is the will of God that all should 
come to repentance, and also that all should be sav- 
ed. It is the same Spirit of God which declares that 
some do perish that declares that all shall come to repen- 
tance and he saved : but the former is his will of purpose 
which must be accomplished, and the other is his will of 
precept which is not always accomplished. It is the same 
scripture which says, 1 Tim. ii. 4, that he w will have all 
men to he saved," that says, John v. 29, " And shall 
come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrec- 
tion of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resur- 
rection of damnation:" and although it is said in the scrip- 
tures to be the will of God that all men should be saved, 
yet we find that some will be damned. Yes, those who 
have done evil : and remember, it is said to be after the 
resurrection. — Again, Hosea iv. 6, «' My people are de<- 
stroyed for lack of knowledge : because thou hast rejected 
knowledge I will also reject thee," How does this agree with 
their favourite text, that he will have all men to be saved, 
except it is the will of precept that is meant and which is 
not accomplished ? Whatever he wills according to his 
will of purpose, is always done ; but that which he wills 
according to his will of precept, is not done. 

We think we have given sufficient evidence to prove 
that there are two kinds of will spoken of in the scripturesj 



284 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

the one, which is the will of purpose, must, as he is so- 
vereign of all, be carried into effect, that all his purposes 
may be established ; but the other, being conditional, is 
not always carried into effect, as many will know to their 
everlasting shame and confusion : and we should bear in 
mind, that the servant who knoweth his Lord's will and 
doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes, (Luke 
xii. 45, — 48,) for not doing according to the will of his 
Lord; which was intended by our Lord as a figure of 
what the Lord of the whole earth would do to the inhabi- 
tants of it if his will of precept was not done. — Again, 
Matt. xxi. 28—31, "A certain man had two sons : and he 
came to the first, and said, Son, go work to-day in my 
vineyard. He answered and said, I will not ; but after- 
ward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, 
and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir ; 
and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his 
father? They say unto him, The first."— Again, Jesus 
says, over that ill-fated city of Jerusalem, Matt, xxiii. 
37, 38, " Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the 
prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how 
often would I have gathered thy children together, even 
as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye 
would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." 
But in the Greek, the verb is »&*.»** I would, which is from 
Sixoolwill, the same verb that is used, 1 Tim. ii. 4, " who 
all men 2n\u he wills to be saved," &c. Yes, Jesus Christ 
would have gathered them together, but they wouldnot be 
gathered by him ; they rejected him, and set at naught his 
will of precept, which was not accomplished : but his will 
of purpose was accomplished in the total destruction of 
that city. 

Thus, it is evident from the passages which have been 
produced, that God's will of precept is conditional, depend- 
ing on the co-operation of man, and is not always accom- 
plished ; but his will of purpose which is formed in tjie 
divine mind, is an absolute will, and is accomplished both 
in the armies of heaven and on the earth. 

We will now pass on to the second proposition, which 
will not take up much time, — that it is his will that all 
mankind universally will be saved. If this were worded, 
generally, I would agree with them, for I am very willing 
to admit what I believe to be true, that all mankind gene- 
rally will be saved ; but I am very far from agreeing with 
them, that all mankind universally will be saved ; for it 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 285 

Is in direct contradiction to God's will of purpose as re- 
vealed in the scriptures ; but I mention what we do be- 
lieve, to do away the prejudice which was intended to be 
made on your minds concerning the doctrines which we 
maintain. We do not believe that all go to hell, nor do 
we believe that the majority of the human family are con- 
signed to a place of torment: nor can any say that we 
ever said so. We believe what the scriptures tell us, that 
many are called but few chosen, (Matt. xx. 16,) but we 
believe that this relates to the past age and to the present, 
but not to the future. It has no reference to that glorious 
Millenium, " when the earth shall be full of the knowledge 
of the Lord as the waters cover the sea," (Isa. xi. 9,) and 
when the saints of God, who have M not worshipped the 
beast, neither his image, neither have received his mark 
upon their foreheads or in their hands, shall live and reign 
with Christ a thousand years," (Rev. xx. 4,) will, in num- 
ber, be as much greater than those who go to hell, as the 
grains of sand upon the sea shore, are, compared to the 
inhabitants of the earth, or, than the number of inhabi- 
tants in this city, are to the criminals in the state prison ! 
As a brother of mine, in the ministry, once said, the idea 
is too great and too strong for. our weak minds, as it is 
impossible for the utmost stretch of fancy to conceive so 
glorious a subject. We, therefore, do agree with them, 
that God's will of purpose must and will be accomplished. 
We only differ in what that will is. We contend that al- 
though according to God's will of precept, he willeth all 
mankind to be saved, yet, according to his will of pur- 
pose, all men will not be saved : and we also admit, that 
according to his will of purpose, mankind generally will 
be saved : but this, it must be allowed, is widely differ- 
ent from admitting that all men universally will be saved. 
When we use the word of God in its proper sense, it is 
consistent with itself and with all the attributes of its di- 
vine author, but when the scriptures are perverted or used 
in an incorrect sense, they appear contradictory and un- 
intelligible, and it is only by the influence of the Holy Spi- 
rit enlightening our minds, which enables us to see them 
as we ought. In the first sense, they are like a chain, 
link within link, supporting and strengthening each other. 
In the latter sense, they are like a rope of sand, without 
any union of parts whatever. Just so are the arguments of 
my opponent, not one of which can be supported by Holy 
Writ. I shall not have time to take notice of his other 



286 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

arguments, as I wish to say something on the observa^ 
tions which fell from him this morning. 

I was charged with misrepresenting some of the passa- 
ges of scriptures to suit my own purposes, and with hav- 
ing found fault with him for calling them parables instead 
of history ; yet, he said I used parts of what he calls para- 
bles figuratively myself. The truth is, I do not look upon 
them as a plain history, much less do I view them as pa- 
rables ; but consider them as prophecies. When our Lord 
Jesus says to those on his right hand, " Come ye blessed 
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
the foundation of the world,'' and to the wicked, " Depart 
from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the 
devil and his angels," I do not consider it either as a pa- 
rable or as a history, since it has not yet taken place, 
but as a prophecy yet to be fulfilled. 

I was also charged with asserting and acknowledging, 
that the term aionion is in some of the passages where it 
occurs, used in a limited sense. This is not a fact. But 
it is like my opponent. I stated that there were sixty pas- 
sages in the scriptures where this term is used in a sense 
which necessarily implies an absolute eternity, and this, I 
observed, he had admitted, or was willing to admit him- 
self, and that there were six others, (making in the whole, 
sixty-six,) found in connexion with punishment, w r hich be- 
ing placed in apposition with the others, I understand it 
to mean an equally unlimited duration. He formerly con- 
tended that the term was never used in an unlimited sense: 
but now he is willing to allow himself, that the term, in 
sixty places where it is used in the New Testament, may 
be considered as implying an absolute eternity. Thus, you 
see, he is willing to admit it in this sense in every instance 
except when found in connexion with punishment, and in or- 
der to give some colour to this objection, he says, that in 
the Old Testament, as it is applied to things of a tempo- 
ral nature, it cannot mean an absolute eternity, and there- 
fore it can only mean a limited duration when used in the 
New Testament. 

Thus, to establish his doctrine, be has attempted to 
make it appear that the scriptures contradict themselves : 
and I wish you to notice, he has given up all those passa- 
ges in the New Testament, which he formerly contended 
were limited in their signification, and now he admits that 
they may mean an absolute eternity ; and he wishes to 
make you believe that I have given up as much in his fa- 



MEOteGICAX DISCUSSION. 287* 

your, and have admitted that it is sometimes used in a li- 
mited sense. He has no objection on his part to compro- 
mise the matter, if we will only meet him half way, and 
give up as much as he has done. In this way, Universa- 
list speakers and writers often remind me of the history 
which is narrated of the decision of that wise king of Is- 
rael, in relation to the two women and their children, [1 
Kings iii. 16 — 28,] the woman who owned the dead child, 
was very willing to have the living child divided between 
them according to the decision of the king : but the real 
mother of the living child preferred rather that her child 
should be given whole to the other than that it should be 
divided. She, therefore, said, " O, my Lord, give her the 
living child, and in no wise slay it." But the other said, 
" Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it." Just 
so with our opponents and with us. Truth is our child, 
and we are not willing to compromise any part of it. He, 
on the other hand, has no objection to divide with me ; for 
he thinks the scriptures are good for nothing, any further 
than he can, by his false constructions, make use of them 
to establish his own point : and to assist him in this, he 
has told you that I have retracted my former opinions and 
admitted that aionion is used in a limited sense. But this 
is not true. I have not made any concessions in his fa- 
vour in relation to this term either directly or indirectly, 
but have always used it in the same unlimited sense. 



4 \ o'clock. 

Mr, Kneelaiul. — I am very sorry to perceive that my 
opponent's memory is so treacherous. It is only a proof, 
however, of the truth of what he himself has told you, 
namely, that he pays but little attention to the arguments 
of his opponent. Is it, then surprising, that he needs a 
friend to remind him of what I^osay? Ofthishehas 
more than once informed you. If he paid more attention 
to my arguments, he would not so often mistake or 
misrepresent what I say. — Because I said he found 
fault with me for calling the account of the rich man and 
Lazarus a parable, and at the same time represented part 
of it figuratively himself, he says I charged him with mis- 
representing the scriptures to suit his own purposes. I 
said no such thing. 1 said that I had the same authority 
for calling the account of the rich man and Lazarus a pa- 



28& THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

rable that lie had for calling what he did, (the parable of 
the sheep and goats,) an account of the last judgment, 
namely, the authority of the translators. This is what I 
stated : but was this saying that he misrepresented the 
scriptures to suit his own purposes ? Or was it saying any 
thing about his giving up the unlimited meaning of the 
word aionion ? Certainly not : neither did I say any such 
thing; and you who are present are my witnesses that I 
made no such statement. He says, also, that I have ad- 
mitted that aionion may be considered to imply an abso- 
lute eternity in every instance except in connexion with 
punishment. I admitted no such thing. I told him he 
might have it so if he pleased, well knowing that it would 
make nothing in favour of his argument or against mine : 
for if, according to his criterion, the number of passages in 
which the term is used in a particular sense, is to deter- 
mine its meaning, it would prove as much against him as 
for him; for this term, (aionion, or what is the same, the 
Hebrew term uhy oulam,) on that principle, after all, can 
only be of a limited signification, as the term is more fre- 
quently applied, in the Old Testament, to things of a tem- 
poral nature than it is to things which are in themselves 
of an eternal nature. But he tells you that I said, because 
it is applied to things of a temporal nature in the Old Tes- 
tament it only means a limited duration, and therefore 
never means any thing else in the New. I stated no such 
thing. I said that the duration did not depend on the 
meaning of this word ; but that, being used in connexion 
with things that are of themselves endless, or are under- 
stood to be of an endless duration in their nature, the 
meaning of aionian must, in such a connexion, be equally 
extended ; but that the term in itself signifies a hidden, 
unknown, though limited period of time ; and when con- 
nected with things which are temporal and limited in 
their nature, the word is then limited to the nature of those 
things, let that be longer or shorter : and in this my op- 
ponent agrees with me, as well as the most learned com- 
mentators on this subject. And I again assert, that he 
admitted that it was sometimes used in a limited sense, 
and that it depended upon its connexion for the extent of 
its signification, and he gave you a number of passages 
where it is so used. Will he say that he did not say this? 
No — he cannot! Then why has he told you that /have 
attempted to make it appear that the scriptures contra- 
dict themselves, since he at first agreed with me that the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 289 

extent of the meaning of the word was varied according 
to its connexion ? — though now he wishes to make you 
believe that he has always contended that it is ever used 
in an unlimited sense. 

He has told you that the will of God means nothing un- 
less it is accomplished. In this we are perfectly agreed. 
I am happy to agree with my opponent in all that I can : 
at the same time, I have expressed no wish for him to 
compromise any tiling ; nor did I so much as think of it 
till he mentioned it himself: much less am I disposed to 
give up the doctrine which I believe to be true, until he 
can convince me that I hold error. He has told you that 
to will is one thing, and to do is another thing very wide- 
ly different; and that to will and not to do is doing no- 
thing. But what evidence has he given that the will of 
God, in relation to the salvation of all men, will not be 
accomplished ? He has told you that it is only God's 
will of precept ; and that it will not be accomplished be- 
cause it is conditional, depending upon the co-operation 
of man : but what authority has he given you for saying 
that the will of God, which he has termed the will of pre 
eept, will not be accomplished? The evidence or opinion 
of the Rev. Mr. M'Calia — and nothing more! But he 
must not suppose that we will give him the argument on 
his evidence merely ; nor upon any other, unless he can 
give us a " Thus saith the Lord" for its support. Till he 
does this, we shall remain as we are. Such a doctrine is 
too important to be received on the mere ipse dixit of any 
man. But although his assertions cannot be admitted 
as evidence in this important question, yet I am very 
willing that you set them down for what they are worth. 
Jesus Christ says, John vi. 31, "For I came down from 
Heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that 
sent me." This is a Hebraism which I will endeavour to 
explain. It cannot be supposed that Jesus had a will in 
opposition to that of his Father; or that in doing his Fa- 
ther's will he acted contrary to his own; though the words 
will admit of such a construction : that is, as they stand 
in the common version. In order, therefore, to complete 
the sense, it is necessary to supply the words only and 
also ; for these two words are implied, though not ex- 
pressed. The text will then read thus : " For I came 
down from Heaven not to do mine own will jtnly, but also 
the will of him that sent me." This makes the sense 
clear and easy to be understood. There are many such 
* 37 



290 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOKV 

Hebraisms in the New Testament, which it is unnecessary 
to take up time to rehearse ; such as, " If any man come 
after me and hate not his father/' (&c. naming other rela- 
tions,) " he cannot be my disciple." Not that Jesus 
taught his disciples to hate any one ; but it is explained 
in another place : « He that loveth father or mother more 
than me, is not worthy of me." Matt. x. $7. We will 
now ask, what is the will of God, (and of Jesus Christ, 
for they possessed hut one will in relation to the salvation 
of man,) concerning that world into which God sent his 
son? I will not give you an answer to this question from 
me, but will give you the words of our Lord himself, as 
recorded by the Evangelist, (John vi. 39,) "And this is 
the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which 
he hath given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up 
again at the last day." And in another place, which is 
fully satisfactory on this subject, he says, (John iii. 17,) 
" God sent not his son into the world to condemn the 
world, but that the world through him might be saved. 
Here we are toTd, negatively, for what the son was not 
sent into the world ; namely, to condemn the world! and 
if he was not sent into the world to condemn the world, 
have we any evidence that he ever will condemn it? Se- 
condly, we are told, positively, for what he did come into 
the world ! namely, " That the world through him might 
be saved." It will be admitted then, I suppose, that it 
was his Father's will that the world should be saved, and 
not condemned ! If so, I ask, will this purpose of God be 
accomplished ? Jesus Christ himself says, (John xii. 47,) 
** I came not tm k ? ivu> to condemn the world, but h* <™<ra> to 
save the world." Will he do then what he came to do, or 
will he not? If you say he will not, I ask what reason 
has he to do otherwise ? Has he not a sufficiency of pow- 
er to accomplish the work, or to perform the will of him 
that sent him ? This will not be denied by those who be- 
lieve him to be God as well as man. Then, as it is the 
declared will of God, that the world through him should 
be saved, I ask, will not the world be saved ? In another 
passage, which relates to the Messiah, it says, (Isa. liii. 11) 
" He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be sa- 
tisfied." I think there is no christian but will agree with 
me that this is spoken in relation to the salvation by 
Jesus Christ. Then, I ask, will the Messiah, Christ, the 
Son of God, be satisfied with coming short of what h» 
came into the world to do ? And for what did the Re- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 291 

tleemer's soul travail? What did he come into the world 
to do ? His soul travailed for the spiritual birth of the 
world. He came into the world to save it. If, then, this 
is not done, will he be satisfied ? But " he shall see of the 
travail of bis soul." — The word, travail, here means la- 
bour, sorrow and trouble; and Jesus was a man of sor- 
rows, and acquainted with grief. I dare say there are- 
many in this assembly who know the full meaning of the 
metaphor without further explanation ; and, to bring the 
matter home to them, may I not be permitted to apply it 
in a natural sense, and modestly ask this question, — Is it 
possible that any thing short of the birth or deliverance 
of all for whom the soul travaileth should give satisfac- 
tion ? If two or more were the cause of the labour, would 
such a soul be satisfied with the birth of one ? Certainly 
not. Just so it is in relation to the travail of the Redeem- 
er's soul : and if this travail, this labour, toil, and bloody 
sweat be undertaken for all mankind, — and who can say 
,it was not, — must not all men be born again, and conse- 
quently be saved, before the Redeemer's soul is satisfied ? 
Yes, my hearers, for he never can be satisfied with any 
thing short of it. — Again, Isa. liv. 17, " No weapon that 
is formed against thee shall prosper." This also, I sup- 
pose, will be admitted to relate to Jesus Christ, or at least 
it may be justly applied to him. If, then, he came into 
the world to save the world, and it be also true that no 
weapon that is formed against him shall prosper, will his 
enemies be able to prevail against him and prevent the 
accomplishment of what he came to do ? Why,~ then, will 
not the world be saved ? — Suppose a general was sent out 
with an army to accomplish a certain object, and if no 
weapon which might be raised by the enemy could pre- 
vail against him, would not the object of his expedition be 
accomplished if he were willing on his part to accomplish 
it? — We know equally well, that the will of God in Christ 
will be accomplished ; and although the weapons of my 
opponent, as well as of many others, are formed against 
it, yet they shall not prosper. Hence, Christ will accom- 
plish all that he came to do ; namely, he will effect the sal- 
vation of all men ; for it was for this purpose that he was 
sent into the world. My opponent will stand up present- 
ly, and, perhaps, will tell you all this is only his will of 
precept, and will, therefore, not be accomplished : but we 
will show you that it is God's will of purpose, that all 



292 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

men should be saved, and not his mere will of precept 
only. 

I am very happy that my opponent has put me in this 
track, which I have been wanting him to do from the com- 
mencement, for we are now at issue. We have at last 
come to a point, and on the decision of this point, he will 
stand or fall. I am happy, also, to see so many bright 
countenances on his side of the question, and I hope they 
will keep them up until thorough conviction shall produce 
the change. I shall not be surprised, however, if they 
should fall while I am reading a few plain passages from 
the scriptures : 

Eph. i. 9, 10, "Having made known unto us the mys- 
tery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he 
hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the 
fulness of times, he might gather together in one all tilings 
in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on 
earth, even in him." Now, my friends, observe particu- 
larly these words, " Having made known unto us the mys-< 
tery of his will." Put that down : — we shall see present- 
ly whether it be his " will of precept" that is here meant; 
which, my opponent tells you, "will not be accomplished," 
Now read on : " according to his good pleasure." No- 
tice, his pleasure, and put that down. Now go on : " which 
he hath purposed in himself," — observe particularly, — 
" which he hath purposed," not in another, not condition- 
ally, but in "himself." Put that down! — Now, what is 
the amount? Here you have the will, pleasure, and 
purpose of God, all in one connexion; and it must be his 
" determined counsel," because it is purposed in "him- 
self." And to what does this will, of which Paul is speak- 
ing, relate? Has it any thing to do with our subject? It 
is this: — "That in the dispensation of the fullness of 
times, he might gather together in one all things in 
Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, 
even in him." This is his will, which Paul tells us that 
God hath purposed in himself; that is, in his own mind ; 
not in the opinion of my opponent, nor of many others, but 
in himself. What evidence, then, is this of my oppo- 
nent's will of precept, and that the will of God which re- 
lates to the salvation of man is not his will of purpose ? 
Paul says, it is his will, his pleasure, and his purpose, 
which he hath purposed in himself, to gather together in 
one all things in Christ. Now, this is perfectly in accor- 
dance with what the same apostle has written to the Co- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 20$ 

lossians, (Col. i. 20,) "For it pleased the Father that in 
him should all fulness dwell, and, having made peace 
through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all 
things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things 
in earth, or things in heaven." Does this mean all man- 
kind or not? If it does not, what does it mean? Can it 
mean any thing? It appears to me, that by all things be- 
ing reconciled to him, it includes all unreconciled beings ; 
for if there be a single unreconciled being that will not be 
reconciled to him, it cannot mean all things. I will give 
you the opinion of Professor Stewart, on this subject, who 
is of my opponent's own creed : 

In his attempt to prove that Jesus Christ was God, he 
endeavours to show that all creation will worship him as 
God, Hence, he was led to say, that " the expresion, 
things in heaven, in the earth, and under the earth, is a 
common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament 
writers to signify the Universe. Therefore, by the words 
vattavta ta panta, rendered all things, &c. we are to under- 
stand that every created thing in the universe is to give 
glory to Jesus Christ as God." I may not have given the 
Professor's words exactly, but I have given his argument. 
But he was not aware what he was proving while lie was 
proving that all things will worship Jesus Christ as God, 
and will render unto him spiritual worship. For no 
one can render spiritual worship to a being to whom they 
are unreconciled, nor without being happy in such wor- 
ship. Hence, the Professor, it is presumed, was not aware 
that he was proving that all things are to be reconciled 
to God by the blood of the cross, and, consequently, all 
must be finally happy. When, therefore, I preach the res- 
titution of all things, I cannot use words more to the pur- 
pose than those of the apostle Paul, when he said, (2 Cor. 
v. 19,) " God was in Christ reconciling the world unto 
himself, not imputing to them their trespasses :" or, that 
Christ, having made peace by the blood of his cross, will 
"reconcile all things unto himself, whether they be things 
in earth or things in heaven ;" or, as Professor Stewart 
expresses it, shall have reconciled " all things in the uni- 
verse." 

My opponent seemed to insinuate that I call in question 
a part of his creed, namely, the divine sovereignty. This 
is entirely a mistake. No man living is more confident of 
the truth of the absolute sovreignty of God. It is on this 
that I build my faith. I say that he doeth all his pleasure 



294 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

in heaven, and on the earth, and in the whole created uni- 
verse, and none can withstand his will. He turneth the 
hearts of the children of men as the rivers of water are 
turned. And he says, (Isa. xlvi. 10,) " My counsel shall 
stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Here is one of the 
three words used in this text which we before found asso- 
ciated. He says, " My counsel shall stand, and I will do 
all my pleasure." This is what I believe. Who, then, 
doubts the sovereignty of God ? My opponent tells you 
that he never will do all his pleasure, and that his will, 
in relation to reconciling, and, consequently, making all 
things happy, never will be accomplished. — In order to 
prove this testimony of his, he produced a passage from 
Matthew, (xxii. 37,) " How often would I have gathered 
thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chick- 
ens under her wings, and ye would not;" and from this he 
argues, that as they were not willing to be saved, the will 
of God in relation to them, will never be accomplished. Is 
this correct ? Did God ever wish to gather them against 
their will ? Did God ever intend to force them against 
their will? Certainly not. I "would have gathered," 
says Jesus, " and ye would not;" and because they would 
not be gathered, he, at that time, would not gather them. 
God created man a moral being ; and I do not see how 
he can take away their moral agency without taking away 
at the same time their accountability: but the moral agen- 
cy of the Jews must have been taken away before Christ 
could have made them act, in a moral sense, against their 
will : but this he never does : we always act, and must 
act, so long as we remain moral agents, in accordance 
with our own will. We never find that God makes us act 
counter to it. He says, speaking of Adoni, the Messiah, 
(Ps. ex. 3,) "Thy people shall be willing in the day of 
thy power." This does not say he will force them against 
their will. Ko: "they shall be willing," &c. If they 
were unwilling before, he can change their wills and make 
them willing in the day of his power. — Because some are 
said to perish utterly. (2 Pet. ii. 12,) my opponent tells 
you, it means, perish eternally: but man may perish ut- 
terly, and yet, after he has so perished, be restored again. 
— He wants, also, to make out that the will of God, where 
he says, (2 Pet. ii. 9,) that " he is not willing that any 
should perish," shall not be accomplished, because some 
do perish. But, can he prove that any perish, in the sense 
in which God is not willing they should 2 In order to 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 295 

prove this, he must show that the word perish always 
means the same thing : till he can do this, he will not be 
able to prove that the counsel of God shall not stand, or, 
that his will, in every instance, will not be accomplished, 
— It is said, (Ps. xc. 3,) *< That he turneth man to destruc- 
tion." This, of course, is according to his will ; and a 
man may be destroyed and yet not eternally perish* — God 
says to Ephraim, (Hosea i. 6,) " Call her name Lo-ruhan- 
nah : for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Is- 
rael ; but I will utterly take them away." Again, 9th v. 
he says, " Call his name Lo-ammi : for ye are not my peo- 
ple, and I will not be your God." Now, here is a plain 
declaration concerning Ephraim, where he had declared 
that he would not be their God, and they should not be his 
people. But read on a little further. " Yet the number 
of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, 
which cannot be measured nor numbered : and it shall 
come to pass, that in the place where it is said unto them, 
Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, 
Ye are the sons of the living God." So, you see, my hear- 
ers, that the will of God will be accomplished in relation 
to those, whom, he said, he would utterly take away. But, 
with reverence be it spoken, we must give God time to ac- 
complish what he hath spoken ; for in his own good time 
he will reconcile all things to himself: and there is no- 
thing in heaven, or earth, nor under the earth, that can 
affect his will or alter his determinate counsel. 

My opponent says that God wills all mankind to be 
saved generally, but not universally. He knew he must 
not admit that all men universally will be saved, accord- 
ing to the purpose of God ; for had he done this, he must 
have admitted that all men will be saved, indiscriminate- 
ly : he therefore tells you, that it is the purpose of God 
to save all men generally. But where does he find that 
God only wills the salvation of all men generally? Not 
in the Scriptures — for this is not Bible language. The 
apostle says, 1 Tim. ii. 1 — 6, "I exhort, therefore, that^ 
first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giv- 
ing' of thanks, be made for all men." This, my opponent 
will tell us, I suppose, means all men in general, and that 
it does not include heretics. We will go on with what 
Paul says, "For kings and for all that are in authority ; 
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godli- 
ness and honesty:" that is generally— not universally : 
for if it does not mean all, universally, in one case, it can- 



296 THEOLOGICAL DISCUS SION, 

not mean so in the other : so that there may he a little dis- 
honesty, according to his " will of precept." " For this 
is good, and acceptable in the sight of God, our Saviour, 
who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the 
knowledge of the truth :" that is, according to his will of 
precept, he commands us to be honest generally, and he 
will have all men to be saved generally. '• For there is 
but one God," fgeneralhj,J and one Mediator, (general- 
ly,) between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who 
gave himself a ransom for all, (that is, all generally,) to 
be testified in due time." How do you like this reading, 
my hearers ? Have I injured the Scriptures by reading 
them in this way, or have I done them justice ? If I have 
injured them by reading them in this manner, I have only 
to say, I have read them as my opponent taught me. But 
I know you do not like it ; neither do I ; yet he would 
have you believe, that, although God wills all men to be 
saved, (or commandeth all men, as Macknight renders 
it,) yet this salvation will only be partial ; for all men 
will not be saved. Now, I ask you my hearers, if God 
wills (or commands) all men to be saved, will they not all 
be finally saved? And if all are saved finally, will not 
all be finally happy ? My opponent seems to understand 
those passages in the Scriptures which speak of God being 
angry, as Jonah did ; and many like him, seem to be as 
displeased when they find themselves disappointed. God 
sent Jonah to preach destruction to Ninevah, and when 
he found that his prediction was not fulfilled, according 
to his conception of it, he grew very angry. (Jonah iv.) 
But God did not destroy the city to destroy the wicked- 
ness of it, nor yet the people ; for they repented them of 
their evil. Thus God understood the message better than 
Jonah ; yet he had positively told Jonah, that Ninevah 
should be destroyed ; but it was not his will that the peo- 
ple of Ninevah should have been destroyed, or it would 
have been so. If God is not willing that all men should 
be saved, all men will not be saved ; but, on the other 
hand, as God is willing that all men shall be saved, all 
men will be saved ; for if he be willing in any sense, he 
is so in every sense, and this will be to his glory. But 
if God has purposed to be glorified in the eternal damna- 
tion and misery of any of his creatures, he cannot, consis- 
tently with such a purpose, be even willing, in any sense 
of the word, that such ones should be saved. For this 
would be completely laying aside all the glory which he 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. £97 

had purposed to himself in their eternal damnation. — 
Again, if he is willing, he- must exert means to effect his 
will. If he exert means, he will surely exert adequate 
means ; and if they he adequate means, his purpose will 
surely be accomplished. If God, therefore, should not 
use adequate means to effect the salvation of all mankind 
universally, we cannot believe that he is even willing that 
all should be saved. 

Suppose, for instance, that I should publish that it was 
my will that all mankind should become Universalists ; 
hut instead of trying to convince them that the doctrine 
is true, I should make no exertions whatever, or such ex- 
ertions only as I knew would never convince but a very 
few, and those of the weaker sort, of the truth of the doc- 
trine ; would not every one conclude that I was not sin- 
cere, and that, on the whole, I was not willing as I pre- 
tended? 



5 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — I can place my opponent in a very ridi- 
culous light, when I have time; but at present I must at- 
tend to more important matters. I earnestly wish you, 
therefore, to attend to a very few particulars, and I ask 
no more. He has given you a list of texts, such as I ex- 
pected he would produce, and which are the same that I 
have upon my minutes, and which I purposed noticing 
before I had done. He seems to think because it is stated 
God will subject all things unto himself, and that the 
kingdom of God shall extend throughout the universe, 
that God will save all mankind, both sinner and .saint, 
without any repentance or change of heart. I will show 
you a little with regard to the kingdom of God. I admit 
that the kingdom of Christ will be unlimited in its extent, 
and that all shall know him from the least, even unto the 
greatest, and that " for this purpose the Son of God was 
manifested to destroy the works of the devil," (l John 
iii. 8.) And also, "that having made peace through 
the blood of his cross," he will " reconcile all things unto 
himself." (Col. i. 20.) All this I admit ; but it does not 
prove that he Will save all. When my opponent got hold 
of this passage, he thought himself so triumphant, that he 
conceived the contest must be at an end, and that my 
mouth was completely stopped. I hope to convince you 

38 



298 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

to the contrary. The Scriptures say also, (Rev. v. 13,} 
f* And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard 
I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, 
be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
Lamb, for ever and ever ;" that is not " aionian and be- 
yond it," but to an absolute eternity. It is also stated, 
(Rom. xiv. 11,) " That every knee shall bow to me, and 
every tongue shall confess to God." These, and other 
passages, we believe as well as he does, but they relate 
to the general conquest of Christ, by the blood of his cross, 
over all his creatures — over all creation — and over all 
the kingdoms of the world, and of Satan, that ever were 
established ; but it does not prove that he will save those 
whom he conquers. He says, by his servant David, (Ps. 
viii. 6,) "Thou madest him to have dominion over the 
works of thy hands." And (1 Cor. xv. 25,) "He must 
reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet" These 
passages do not prove that he intends to save all; but 
that his kingdom shall triumph over all opposition. We 
admit all these, then, in as full force as the Universal tats, 
that Christ will reign over all creation, and that the devil 
and all his works will be subdued, and rendered subser- 
vient to the kingdom of Christ ; but this does not prove a 
Universal restoration, as I shall proceed to show you. 

It is one thing to prove that Christ saves all creation, 
and another, widely different, to prove that he conquers 
all creation. It is upon such passages that Dr. Chaun- 
cey, my opponent, and others, in opposition to the truth 
contained in the scriptures, have founded their fallacious 
doctrines. They say, that salvation is extended to all 
that Jesus Christ conquers. They then bring forward 
these passages to prove that he conquers all, consequent- 
ly, say they, all must be saved. 

Now, this would be pretty correct reasoningif the premi- 
ses were equally true. The second proposition we admit 
to be true, — it is the first proposition that is the false one, 
consequently, the deduction must be false. — It is by such 
sophisms as this that they propagate their doctrines : but 
if that wishful consummation of all things, to which we 
look forward with so much anxious hope, when Jesus 
Christ shall subdue all things unto himself and put all ene- 
mies under his feet, means that all he conquers and sets 
his feet upon he will save, we must candidly confess we do 
not know the meaning of language. This kind of language 
is used in the scriptures in seven cases, in the same manner 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 899 

as we now understand it, whether we use it in speaking of 
the battle of the Cowpens, or of any other battle wherein 
we say that we conquered and subdued the enemies of our 
country. So, where Joshua called the chief captains of 
the children of Israel and desired them to put their feet 
upon the necks of the kings of Canaan, whom they had 
conquered, and whom he afterwards slew and hanged, and 
rooted out the nations and destroyed them. Who ever 
looked upon this as a salvation to he desired by any, ex- 
cept it be by my opponent and those of his creed? And yet 
the same idea is conveyed here that is meant when peaking 
of the conquests of Christ, and of his subduing all things 
unto himself. It is a doctrine of the scriptures, indeed, 
that he shall conquer all, but it does not follow that he 
saves all that he conquers, any more than that those Ca- 
naan ites were saved. 

Here, a text comes to my mind which I noticed hefore, 
but very slightly, but a friend of mine told me I ought, 
more particularly, to have noticed it, to have exposed the 
fallacy of my opponent's arguments. Ps. ii. 8, where it 
says, the heathen shall be given to him, (that is, to Christ,) 
for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth 
for his possession, and in the 9th verse it tells you how he 
will dispose of them ; it says, " Thou shalt break them 
with a rod of iron : thou shalt dash them in pieces like a 
potter's vessel." This is the way in which Christ will 
conquer his enemies : and my opponent knew this verse 
was used in connexion with the text, when he quoted the 
passage : why, then, did he not read it ? You need not be 
told the reason : it did not suit his purpose. Perhaps he 
will tell you this verse is spurious. — He is one of those who 
think that the salvation which is preached by Universa- 
lists is better calculated to save sinners than that which 
is preached to the heathen by our Missionaries, but I can 
assure them, for myself, that I desire no such salvation as 
theirs, and I hope, my friends, that not any of you will be 
disposed to dash me to pieces when you wish to befriend 
me. 

You have heard a great deal upon this subject from my 
opponent, I have not time to make remarks upon the whole 
of his learned dissertation, nor upon all the passages 
which he quoted ; I shall, therefore, attend to only one or 
two of them. He has told you that it is said, at the name 
of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue shall con- 
fess, &c. and this he produced to prove that all men uni- 



300 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

versally will be saved : but it is not by selecting a solita- 
ry passage of scripture that we are to prove a doctrine, it 
is as I before told you, by comparing scripture with 
scripture : for although it is declared that all shall not 
stand in the congregation of the Lord, yet it is also de- 
clared that every one shall stand in the judgment and shall 
give an account of himself to God ; and the apostle men- 
tions this passage in his epistle to the Romans, (xiv. 11,) 
to prove that there will be a general judgment after death, 
and that we shall all have to give an account of ourselves 
to God for that which we have done in the body, as you 
will find in the preceding and following verses : and we are 
sufficiently informed of what is to be the result of this judg- 
ment unto the wicked ; for Jesus Christ himself has told 
us, "Then will the king say unto them on his left hand, 
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared 
for the devil and his angels." This is the bowing of the 
knee, and these are they who will confess to the honour, 
and glory, and majesty of the Most High, who thus had 
power to subdue them, and to tread them under his feet. 
But I wish no such salvation as this. — This passage, 
(Matt. xxv. 44) relates to the very period when all things 
shall be gathered together in Christ Jesus, and all the na- 
tions of the earth before him ; when he shall fill all things 
with the glory of his presence, which glory will be the 
destruction of the sinner but the happiness of the saint. 
All the other parts of this text relate to the eternal suffer- 
ing of the sinner. I feel myself bound to tell you what I 
conceive to be the true meaning of these passages, and I 
should be very sorry to pervert the scriptures to suit my 
own purposes, or by false and sophistical reasoning to ex- 
plain away the meaning of words as my opponent has such 
a facility in doing. 

I will here make a remark on what I said before in re- 
lation to the will of God. — lie told y.ou that I said the will 
of God will not be accomplished ; but I said that his will 
of purpose and will of precept were different, and it was 
his will of precept that will not be accomplished. He 
brought forward several passages corresponding with 
those which I had produced, to prove that I was mistaken. 
If, then, it is God's will of purpose when he declares the 
sinner shall surely die, and yet he pardons that sinner on 
repenting and believing. I made a mistake in Ezekiel, — 
I perhaps made a mistake, also, in the passages from the 
Ephesians and Corinthians, but this may easily be account- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 3QI 

e& for, as I was reading his new translation of the Tes- 
tament at the moment. It is no wonder, then, it should 
lie incorrect. — He told you there was one passage which 
satisfied him on all these subjects which relate to the gen- 
eral judgment by Jesus Christ which he quoted from John, 
" That Christ came not into the world to condemn the 
world," &c. This, to him, is very satisfactory that there 
is to be no condemnation ; hence, he argued that it is evi- 
dent he came not to condemn any thing that is in the 
world, and this, he says, is a negative expression to prove 
that all who come into the world will be saved. Now, 
you remember, I brought several negative expressions of 
scripture to prove the eternity of God, of Christ's king- 
dom and of the happiness of the saints, and a great num- 
ber of like negative expressions, to prove that there shall 
be no end to the punishment of the wicked, such as, They 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, but my oppo- 
nent tells you, in direct contradiction to the scriptures, 
that they shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, let them 
be ever so vile. When Christ says they shall not be for- 
given neither in this world nor in the next, my opponent 
tells you they shall, or rather, he tells you there is no 
need of forgiveness. What need have we, says he, of 
grace to save us from our sins ? They are merely negative, 
they are a mere nothing, and we have no need of grace, 
for we are punished here in proportion to our sins, and, 
therefore, you need fear nothing hereafter. — He told us 
this morning that it is the wickedness of the sinner that is 
to be burned up with fire and destroyed, but that the sin- 
ner himself will escape this fire : this word fire deserves 
a little further comment. — He has told you that aionion 
fire does not signify eternal fire, nor are those sinners who 
are said to be enduring the vengeance of this aionion fire, 
suffering in it. It is their sins which are being burned up 
or which are suffering this vengeance, but he forgot the 
explanation which he had previously given to that pas- 
sage in Hebrews where it says, God is a consuming fire. 
Then he argued that the fire there meant, was God : it 
must, therefore, eternally exist, because God is necessari- 
ly eternal. But now, he says, those sinners are not to be 
in this eternal fire but are to be taken out of this consum- 
ing fire ; that is, according to him, those who were in God 
are to be taken out of him again, and their sins are to re.~,, 
main in it, that is, in God. 



302 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Is it not shameful, my friends, that a man who calls him- 
self a minister of the gospel of Christ, should first explain 
a thing one way and then explain it in another in 
order to get clear of the important truth which is declar- 
ed? The scriptures plainly declare, that those sinners 
whom the Lord slew in their wickedness, are " suffering 
the vengeance of eternal fire." Yes, of a fire " that never 
shall he quenched." How are they suffering the ven- 
geance of eternal fire? If they he suffering the vengeance 
of aionionfire in God, how can they be delivered from it? 
"Will not God exist to all eternity? And if they he deliv- 
ered from it, how are they yet suffering the vengeance of 
this eternal fire? But he says the word aionion does not 
mean eternal, it depends upon the connecting word, there- 
fore it may mean a temporary duration. This is like all 
the rest of his sophisms. It is like seeing a person who 
tells you that he has been in a bath of water : you, of 
course, understand him a temporary one, and, therefore, 
there would be no necessity for explanation on that point : 
but according to my opponent, he must tell you that he 
applied the word to the bath only and not to the water that 
was in the bath, lest you should suppose he was in both 
or else in neither ; thus with him, he tells you that they 
must be in these fires and yet not to eternity ; for, he says, 
the sinners that are in eternity are not suffering the ven- 
geance of this eternal fire, but their sins only, and that 
this eternal fire is God, in whom departed spirits dwell, 
and yet they are not in God, nor are they in this eternal 
fire : and yet they are in God, and he being this consum- 
ing fire, they must, of course, be in this eternal fire ! 

I have thought it necessary to bring part of what he has 
advanced together that we might the better see the tenor 
of his argument. Whether the fire spoken of, be under- 
stood in his sense or mine, is, according to him, of very 
little or no consequence : for, he says, our sins are a mere 
negation, a mere nothing, and the punishment is only in 
proportion to the sins ; consequently, the punishment can 
be nothing, a mere negation also ! In this sense, truly, it 
is of no consequence what a man believes or does, what 
the fire is, or how long it is to last, for if our sins are no- 
thing, whether we commit sins as long as we live, we still 
do nothing ; or whether the fire threatened to unbelievers 
burn for ever and ever, or only for a limited period, still 
the fire burns up nothing, and then nothing is to be taken 
mit of this fire, and it is to continue burning nothing ! 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION, 303 

Who does not see the fallacy of such reasoning as this ? 
and yet these are the doctrines which my opponent ad- 
yances. He is, however, perpetually changing his face. 
Compare the few past observations which I have made, 
with what he said in relation to Jonah's desire to see the 
inhabitants of Ninevah destroyed, and you will perhaps 
see a little into what he would insinuate : but there is no 
possibility of seeing his intention, or of knowing frequent- 
ly what he does mean, and I often question if he knows 
himself. It is my desire that all men should be happy, 
if all men were made fit recipients of divine favour. — 
But it is one thing to desire particularly, and another 
thing to have an inclination to make a wrong use of what 
is said. I said that I believed all mankind would be 
saved generally, but I as explicitly told you that I did not 
believe, with my opponent, that all mankind would be 
saved universally ; and this I yet say. I do not quibble 
with my words, as my opponent lias done, but what I 
have said at one time, I can repeat ; but do not mistake 
me when I say that all mankind generally will be saved. 
I do not mean that any will be saved without being born 
again. The reason I assigned for believing that all men 
will be saved generally, is, that in the last thousand years 
of the existence of this world, when Christ shall reign 
upon the earth with his saints, the increase of the number 
«f his saints shall as far exceed the number of those who 
will be lost, as the inhabitants of this city of Philadelphia 
exceed in number the prisoners in the State Prison. Such 
a large majority will then be delivered through the pre- 
cious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that those who are 
lost, or who are delivered over to Satan, will be compa- 
ratively few. I wish you to take notice of the consistency 
of the Universalist scheme, as made known to us by my 
opponent, and others who advance the doctrine. It is 
declared by them that all sins whatsoever, that are com- 
mitted of all men, are punished in this world. This is 
satisfactory punishment, and is very different from the 
position which my opponent took in the question, at the 
commencement of the debate. He then told you it was 
for their good, and to be succeeded by eternal happiness 
afterwards ; and this latter part of the proposition he told 
you he was determined to support: but he has since ad- 
mitted that they are punished in this world in proportion 
to their sins. This is a disciplinary punishment ; but it is 
satisfactory punishment, that the wicked are threatened 



304 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

with not in time, but in eternity. Who does not know 
that the punishment which will he inflicted on them is 
satisfactory punishment? It is to satisfy the demands of 
God's eternal justice. Another species of punishment to 
which my opponent resorted, is disciplinary punishment, 
by which he wishes you to understand they are prepared 
for another state. Now, suppose a father had a child that 
had transgressed against him, and he wished to punish 
that child according to the merits of the transgression ; 
if he wished to save that child's life, would he chastise him 
with a rod of iron, and dasli him in pieces, as it is said 
in the Scriptures the transgressors of God's law are 
punished? — or, according to another plan of my opponent, 
fathers should not punish their children at all, but leave 
them to God, and he will punish them here to make them 
better hereafter. In this manner has my opponent shifted 
from one to another, till I am sure you do not now know 
which of them he has been attempting to prove. I had 
anticipated that he would shift his ground, and therefore 
wished you to hear from himself the part of the proposi- 
tion he intended to support; for it is their way, when one 
will not answer they take another. In this manner did 
Dr. Chauncey, as I before told you, shift his ground. He 
began with satisfactory punishment ; finding this would 
not answer, he proceeded to penitentiary : finally he ended 
in the total annihilation of the wicked. My opponent has 
differed somewhat from his track. He tells you that sin 
is nothing. Consequently if a man be punished for a 
transgression, that he is punished for nothing. Now, my 
friends, take into view the heinous nature of sin, and its 
effects upon civilized life, and then say, if you can, with 
my opponent, that sin is a mere negation — a mere no- 
thing. Do we not see the effects of its baneful influence 
every day ? But were it as he says, what need is there 
of punishment ? It would be nonsense to punish a man 
for doing nothing. It would be like attempting to clear 
a vacuum, or like administering an emetic to clear an 
empty stomach. Let us, for a moment, apply his doc- 
trine to actual life. We will suppose a civil Magistrate 
has a criminal brought before him who has been guilty of 
murder, and the law says, whosoever committeth murder 
shall suffer death; he proceeds to examine this criminal 
according to the doctrine of sin laid down by my opponent, 
and he finds that the crime of which the prisoner is charg- 
ed is nothing — that he is perfectly innocent. Is then the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. S0£ 

man to be punished for nothing? No. It is the sin that 
is to be punished, and this is nothing ; but the murderer 
is to be set at liberty to commit some more negations. — 
The greatest criminal is completely changed, according 
to this system, whether it be applied to theology or law. 
It would appear to reflect a great deal of error upon our 
Judicature ; but it does not do so in reality — for it admits 
of a man being put to death for nothing. This is the sense 
in which we understand his system. We are then, either 
mistaken in our views of it, or else his system is absurdly 
ridiculous and wrong. We all know that murder is a 
most heinous offence, and punishable by human laws with 
death. Our Lord hath declared that he who gets angry 
is a murderer : therefore he who gets angry deserves 
death ; and unless he is saved by the grace of God, he 
will also die the second death. 



5§ o'clock. 

Mr. Kneeland. — If my opponent thinks proper to close 
the discussion this evening, this will be the last opportu- 
nity I shall have to address you on this very important 
subject. I have given him all the information I possess 
in relation to its being further continued in this house. 
Whether he has made any arrangement or not, I do not 
know. As it depends on him, therefore, how much longer 
it shall be continued, or when we shall stop, I shall say 
but little further about it; but I must say, I never solicited 
this controversy, nor am I the first to decline it ; and al- 
though we both agreed to continue it so long as either 
party was dissatisfied, or till we were mutually satisfied, 
yet, when it is his pleasure to stop, I shall stop, and when 
he has done, I have done ; leaving with the candid to de- 
termine who it is that closes this discussion. Presuming, 
however, from what he has said, that I have only thirty 
minutes more, I must make the most of them. My oppo- 
nent says, that he has proved, beyond the possibility of 
contradiction, that the punishment of the wicked is abso- 
lutely eternal. I must confess I do not see how he has 
proved it. Has he shown you any passage where n> % 'nSiy 
"U?, world without end, is connected with punishment ? — 
or, will he still contend that aionian signifies an absolute 
eternity, after he has acknowledged that this term depends 
upon other words for the extent of its meaning, and in 

39 ». •• 



306 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

some instances is very limited ? But, although he is nof 
disposed to admit this limited sense of the term now, yet 
you all know that he has admitted, more than once, that, 
its meaning depended entirely upon its connexion. £ 
think you have heard sufficient in relation to this word, 
to convince you that it must depend upon the other words 
in the connexion in which it is found, or the exegesis, that 
is, the law of explanation. My opponent made some re- 
marks upon this word, exegesis, this morning, intending 
to convey the idea that I had mistaken the word, of which 
I shall now take no notice, as I do not consider them wor- 
thy of any. I said exegesis, not exigency. When, there- 
fore, aionianis used in connexion that requires it to im- 
ply an absolute eternity, we must receive in that sense; 
but I know of no necessity of its being continued to an 
endless eternity, when used in connexion with the punish- 
ment of the wicked. Although I think sufficient has been 
said to convince you in what manner this term is to be 
understood when it occurs in the New Testament, yet I 
will read you one or two passages from the old Testa- 
ment, where the same word is used, to show you the sense 
in which it is understood there. (Gen. xiii. 14, 15.) 
"■ And the Lord said unto Abraham, after that Lot was 
separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look 
from the place where thou art, northward, and southward, 
and eastward, and westward : For all the land which 
thou seest to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever." 
The words in the Hebrew are dStj? *ty od oulam, which 
corresponds with the terms U 5 « 0( heos aionos, in the 
Greek ; or, as my opponent would say, to eternity. Here 
then we find that God has promised to give all this land 
to Abraham, for the same period, or as long a period as 
the fire was to continue, which my opponent tells you is 
to be to all eternity ; for here we have as strong an ex- 
pression, yea, stronger in the Hebrew, than any he has yet 
found connected with punishment. Now if he is disposed 
to contend, and thinks himself able to prove that Abraham 
and his seed will hold the land to all eternity, he will 
prove something ; but this, I may safely engage, he will 
not attempt to do. Then why does he now deny having 
admitted that this term is used in a limited sense? The 
truth is, that it is used in both a limited and unlimite"d 
sense, and is only determined by its connexion. Again, 
in Exodus xii. 23, 24, we read as follows, "For the 
Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians : and when 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 307 

he seeth the blood upon the lintel and upon the two side- 
posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suf- 
fer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite 
you, and ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance for 
ever;" that is, to an absolute eternity, as my opponent 
would say ; but are the Jews to observe these things in 
eternity, or is it even binding upon them now, in the gos- 
pel dispensation ? 

I think my opponent will not be disposed to advocate 
the continued observance of these ordinances of the Mosa- 
ical dispensation, but as a Christian, and not as a Jew, he 
will agree with me that all those rites and ceremonies are 
done away. I think I need not produce any more passa- 
ges to prove what I have stated, for we have shown that 
the strongest terms that are used, where the connexion of 
itself implies an absolute eternity, are also used in a limi- 
ted sense when in connexion with things of a temporal na- 
ture ; and that they are connected with things that have 
had a beginning, continuance, and ending. It is, 
therefore, the connexion in which these terms are found 
that must determine the extent of their meaning. Let 
these words, therefore, be applied to what they may, we 
determine their meaning by the connexion and not by the 
number of times in which they are used in any particular 
sense. 

My opponent says that all those Universalist texts, as 
he is pleased to term them, such as, all things shall be 
subdued unto him, his enemies shall be put under his feet, 
every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, &c. only 
relate to the conquests of Christ's kingdom, and he says 
that he shall finally triumph over all his enemies whom he 
will bring into subjection unto him, and those heathen 
and all the nations of the earth which are to be given to 
him for his possession, he will break in pieces with a rod 
of iron. My opponent deprecates such a salvation, as he 
terms it, as this ; and seems to think it an improper in- 
strument to correct with. I admit that in improper hands 
such an instrument may be used cruelly, but I am not dis- 
posed to admit that there is a possibility of this being the 
case in the hands of God, n®r of Jesus Christ, for with 
whate*. er he chastises his children it is for their good, and, 
therefore, will not be with cruelty. 

I am pleased to find that we are perfectly agreed in re- 
lation to the extent of Christ's kingdom, as that is a very 
necessary point $ but while my opponent agrees to Christ's 



308 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

reigning over all created things, yet he contends that he 
will only reconcile some of them, and the remainder he 
will consign to eternal torments. Now, I ask, if Jesus 
Christ shuts up in prison all whom he conquers, where 
they, according to my opponent, are to remain as great ene- 
mies to Christ as ever, and are ever to he increasing in en- 
mity towards him, are they subdued ? Are they reconciled 
to him and to his government? Certainly not : they areas 
much opposed to him as they ever were. What, my hear- 
ers, did Jesus come into the world to do? Did he not come 
to save sinners and to reconcile all things to God ? And 
are convicts less sinners when shut up in a prison than 
they were before they were put in ? Or are they any more 
reconciled to those who send them there? Will he put 
those in hell who are not sinners? Or will he continue 
those in hell who are subdued and reconciled to God, and 
consequently not sinners any longer ? I presume my op- 
ponent will not admit either of these statements to be true: 
if not, then, how will they be subdued to Christ? And if 
Jesus Christ merely shuts them up in prison, how are their 
bad inclinations and evil propensities subdued so that they 
shall render praise and worship unto God and the Lamb 
for ever ? He will merely have shut them up to keep them 
from mischief and although this may be effected by shut- 
ting them up, yet their enemity is not subdued, — they are 
at enmity with God and his Christ as much as ever; and 
will ever remain so till he has reconciled them to him- 
self; which can never be effected by shutting them up in 
the prison of my opponent. He has also told you that 
Universalists believe that they are better calculated to 
save the heathen, or that they would do better than the 
Missionaries, by preaching their doctrines in relation to 
the salvation of the heathen. Now, my hearers, I, for 
one, believe that they would succeed about as well and no 
better : for I believe that neither Universalists nor Pres- 
byterians, nor Missionaries of any denomination, nor any 
individual except Jesus Christ, or God through Jesus 
Christ, (let me not be misunderstood, I mean the same 
thing,) is able to save a single soul — but God is able 
to save to the uttermost. Universalists, perhaps, migiit 
carry to the heathen the good news, the glad titi'ngs of 
salvation, and inform them that God had given them all 
eternal life in his Son, to whom they were given in the 
covenant of gtface : but if they were to attempt to save 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 30$ 

them in any other way, they would be like other missiona- 
ries, and probably be no more successful. 

My opponent also quoted a passage from the New 
Testament, (Rom. xiv. 11,) where it is said, '-That every 
knee shall bow to me and every tongue confess to God ;" 
and this he quoted to prove that there will be a general 
judgment after death. If you will turn to the passage you 
will find that the apostle has himself quoted the passage 
from one of the prophets, we shall, therefore, connect this 
passage with two others ; and first, the original passage 
itself which you will find in the prophecy of Isaiah, xlv. 
02 — 24^ a Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of 
the earth ; for I am God, and there is none else. I have 
sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in 
righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every 
knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall 
one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and strength : 
even to him shall men come ; and all that are incensed 
against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall the seed 
of Israel be justified, and shall glory." Our translators 
have here supplied the words one and men, which are print- 
ed in Italics, but there is no need of them at all : if it were 
necessary to supply any thing, they should have put every 
one and all men, to correspond with everij knee and every 
tongue, then it would have been understood ; but as it is 
now rendered it is ambiguous : the sense, however, is com- 
plete without supplying any thing. The other passage is 
in the New Testament, Phil. ii. 9—11, " Wherefore God 
also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which 
js above eveiy name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee 
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth," 
and, lest he should be thought to be not sufficiently a Uni- 
versalist, he explains it to them further — he adds, " and 
things under the earth, and that every tongue should con- 
fess" — what shall they confess ? — " That Jesus Christ is 
Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Now, this is the 
apostle's own language, and it is Universal ism good 
enough for me : I want no better :— nothing can be more 
explicit nor more favourable to the doctrines which I hold 
and preach : — I hope I may always preach such Univer- 
sal ism as this. 

My opponent has taken advantage of a passage which I 
quoted from John, but which I said very little upon, (John 
iii. 17,) «'* For God sent not his Son into the world to con- 
demn the world, but that the world through him might be 



S10 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Saved," and he thinks he has proved that the condition of 
man requires condemnation, and by the manner in which 
he has misrepresented what I said, he has given you to 
understand that I think there is no condemnation to the 
sinner. I do not mean to say that he meant to state that 
which is untrue, but only that he has taken advantage of 
my statement, and wishes you to understand that I con- 
tradict the scriptures. — Did I say, because Jesus Christ 
did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to 
save it, that nothing would condemn it ? No, my hearers, 
I said no such thing: the idea originated with my oppo- 
nent altogether ; for 1 believe that the world is condemned 
by sin. Sin condemns the world, and he who committeth 
sin, or who believeth not on the Son whom the Father 
hath sent is "condemned already!" (John iii. 18;) not 
that he has to wait till he gets into another world before 
he is condemned, but that he is condemned here already; 
(< and this is the condemnation, that light is come into the 
world, and men loved darkness rather than lighti because 
their deeds are evil : for every one that doeth evil hateth 
the light, neither cometh to the light that his deeds may 
be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." And 
as long as men love darkness better than light, so long 
they remain in this state of condemnation. Jesus Christ 
is the true light that came into the world, and in him was 
life, and this life was the light of men; hence, in order 
not to be condemned, it is necessary for us to obtain this 
life. John says, (1 John Hi. 21.) "If our own hearts 
condemn us, God is greater and knoweth all things ; but 
if our own hearts condemn us not, then we have confi- 
dence towards God." Now, I know of no other way of 
escaping condemnation than by living so that our own 
hearts condemn us not. " For if our hearts condemn us 
not, then we have confidence towards God." — He has told 
you that I say there is no need of grace to save us from 
our sins, because, he tells you, I said sin was nothing, a 
mere negation. I said no such thing. But I did say that 
there was no need of grace to save us from an unmerited 
punishment ; because God is just, therefore he will not do 
any thing unjustly ; and if God never intended to punish 
any to an absolute eternity, of course, there is no need of 
grace to save us from a punishment which God never in- 
tended to inflict, or which never had an existence even in 
his mind. Docs the justice of God injure any body ? Why, 
then, should we fear that which can do no harm ? We 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 311 

Enow that he is just, therefore will not punish any unjust- 
ly 5 and until endless misery can be proved to be just, no 
one need to fear it. He punishes us, it is true, but it is 
with justice, according to our desert, and although these 
corrections are grievous to he borne, yet they work for 
good to those who receive them. A rod will make a child 
smart, but laid on with judgment, though it should cause 
the child to smart, it will do it good. We, therefore, de- 
pend upon the judgment and justice of God punishing us 
in proportion to our demerits: but from him we do not 
fear an unjust punishment for our transgressions. This 
is all that I meant by saying that we had no need of grace 
to save us from a punishment or state of torment that we 
believe God never designed for any of his creatures ; but 
in another sense we acknowledge the need we have of 
grace ; that is, to keep us from sin, that we may not fall 
into the condemnation of this world. 

In relation to the circumstance of those who are set forth 
for an example, suffering the vengeance of aionion fire, 
mentioned in Jude, my opponent thinks he has made some 
weighty remarks. He says that I have said that it does 
not mean the persons who suffered this aionion fire but 
their sins only, which are set forth as an example, &c. It 
is very easy, my hearers, "to make giants and then to slay 
them !" This is my opponent's uniform practice. But what 
credit does it deserve from you ? Have any of you heard 
me say that the sin was to be destroyed separate from the 
sinner? Can my opponent say that he ever heard me say 
so? Or did he ever see it in any of my writings? No. I 
r ( ead that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners 
— that he shall save his people from their sins, &c. that 
they may cease to do evil and learn to do well. This is 
the way I conceive sinners are saved from their sins, and 
in no other way are they cleansed from them that I am 
acquainted with. But to take sin, which my opponent 
would make you believe that 1 say means nothing, and 
to burn nothing seems such a ridiculous idea, that I really 
wonder he could have the assurance to endeavour to palm 
it upon you for an idea of mine, when he has heard no- 
thing from me, nor seen any thing of mine to warrant 
such an idea ! To be sure, he may have seen in my Lec- 
tures where I was endeavouring to account for the origin 
of sin, that I have said that every act of vice proceeds 
from a want or lack of its contrary virtue : that igno- 
rance is the want or absence of knowledge, folly is the 



\>l£ THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

want of wisdom, injustice the want of justice, cruelty the 
want of mercy, hatred the want of love, &c. and that this 
want of love is called hatred, the same as the absence of 
heat is called cold, — or words to this purport; and that he 
that hateth his brother is a murderer, &c. Now, is this 
making nothing of sin ? and when you punish a murderer 
do you punish nothing? But why should I take up time 
to refute that which carries with it its own refutation ? 

Some arguments were also used to show the inconsisten- 
cy of my statement that God was a consuming fire, which 
would destroy the wickedness of men, and in reference to 
the fire which burned up Sodom and Gomorrah, which I 
stated, lasted two thousand years, and to which the apostle 
Jude refers in his epistle. Did my opponent suppose, 
or if he did suppose so, had he any reason to think that I 
meant to say that God was the fire that consumed Sodom 
and Gomorrah ? If he so understood me, we must suppose 
him candid in his remarks, otherwise not. But no: we 
know that it was literal fire by which they were destroyed, 
but who ever supposed, before my opponent, that God was 
a consuming fire literally ? Does it necessarily follow be- 
cause God is said to be a consuming fire that there is no 
other fire ? We know to the contrary. But what does the 
fire of God consume? It will consume, not the sins of his 
people ahstract from the sinner, but melt into contrition, 
by the fire of divine love, that which produces sin, name- 
ly, the enmity, " which is not subject to the law of God, 
xior indeed can be :" the enmity which rankles in the heart 
of man, and which prompts him to do evil. This being 
destroyed, he will reconcile all men unto himself. If I 
had said that the fire of God burns up fire, he might have 
understood me as he has represented ; but I may have 
said that sin was to be taken away from the sinner, (which 
is figurative language, it is true, but we have scripture 
authority for it) and burned up in this consuming fire of 
divine love : but after all, it is the sinner that is punished. 

My opponent says that none are saved but those who 
are born again : suppose I admit it : will it make any 
thing for him or against me? We read, (John xviii. 37,} 
that Jesus Christ was born to be a witness unto the truth, 
and in 2 Cor. iv. 14, "He which raised up the Lord Jesus 
shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with 
you." Jesus testified of the resurrection ; and being him- 
self raised up, he is called the first born from the dead. 
Now, he who raised up Jesus from the dead will raise us 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 313 

up by Jesus, when we shall all be born again, that is, born 
from the dead as Jesus was. And if it be a birth that is 
necessary to save us, it is this, which is the second birth. 
John says, (l John iii, 9,) "Whosoever is born of God can- 
not sin — because he is born of God." Now we know that 
this cannot be applied to man that is full of mortality. It 
is the principles of God within us that cannot commit sin; 
but the mortal man is prone to sin. — Upon the whole, he 
has admitted that a great majority of the human family 
will be finally saved. This is a great improvement in him, 
as it relates to the future, hut he does not mean, he says, 
to contradict what he has stated in relation to the present 
or the past; for he knows if he were to acknowledge that 
the heathen are now safe there would be no occasion for Mis- 
sionaries, in fact they would not need them. This is a 
great improvement. I was glad to hear it : for it afford- 
ed me much pleasure to hear him make one step towards 
what I conceive to be the truth. — The punishment which 
we receive here, he says, is disciplinary. Now, I ask, whe- 
ther it be disciplinary, penitential, satisfactory, or anything 
else he may please to term it, Does God punish us for good 
or for evil ? It must be for one or the other, and if for 
good, it must produce the good which God designs or else 
he will be disappointed ; but if it be for evil, I ask, What 
worse character could be given to the Almighty ? But my 
time is expired, and I am sorry, as I should be pleased 
to have extended this last idea a little further. 



6 o'clock. 

Mr. M'Calla. — "The Lord is our God," and we have 
not forsaken him, but believe all that he has communi- 
cated to us in his holy Scriptures. If he declares that he 
intended to save all men, we will believe it; or if he says 
that he will save some and damn others, we would not dis- 
pute it. My opponent has repeatedly told you that he 
did not solicit this debate, and I have asserted to the con- 
trary. To settle this point I will just read to you one of 
his challenges, to convince you that I have not set myself 
forward in this matter unnecessarily, or without a strong 
invitation from himself, for I am not a disputer from in- 
clination. I will read you the challenge in his own 
words : — 

40 



314 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

" The author of this work (the Lectures) has no wish 
to deceive himself, much less to be instrumental in de- 
ceiving others. He, therefore, once more respectfully in- 
vites and entreats the clergy of other denominations, or some 
one of them, the more learned the better, to discuss this im- 
portant subject with him; and to point out to him and the 
public, the supposed errors of the following work." 

These were the words of my opponent. I have, there- 
fore, endeavoured to point out some of the errors contain- 
ed in his work, according to his very earnest entreaty. — 
But when I commenced doing so he told me to put it aside, 
not being willing, I suppose, to have them made public. 
I am told lie has been in the habit of repeatedly challeng- 
ing the learned clergy in this manner for several years, 
and because no one thought it worth while to answer him, 
he tells his followers, and many are weak enough to be- 
lieve him, that the reason is, the clergy are afraid. Find- 
ing, therefore, that no one came forward to oppose him, 
and fearing that some good people might be led into the 
belief that his doctrines really were unanswerable, I have 
undertaken it myself, and when I commenced upon the 
errors in his production, he tells me to lay it aside, and 
to take the common version : so that, when he has an op- 
portunity of having his request complied with, he would 
much rather be excused than embrace it. I again repeat, 
my only reason for accepting his challenge was because 
no one else did, and if I had not come forward, it might 
have remained before the public, unnoticed, for a hundred 
or more years, so little did it engage the attention of those 
to whom it was addressed. I came forward, therefore, to 
discharge what I conceived to be my duty, without ex- 
pecting to receive any thing as a recompence for my long 
journey and hard labour, and without any more pay 
than is allov\ed to other missionaries, and without ex- 
pecting any thing more than the answer of a good 
conscience for the faithful discharge of my duty; for 
they receive very little thanks for their labours who 
are engaged in the dissemination of the doctrines of divine 
love. My opponent has brought forward the old question, 
but I do not consider it necessary, nor have I now time, 
to follow him in his observations. I have passed over 
several of them before without any comment, but I will 
repeat one which 1 before mentioned, in the same rela- 
tion, for their service. It was the observation of a Uni- 
tarian of old, who said to God's own son when suffering on 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 315 

the ci:oss, " Come down from the cross and I will be- 
lieve." Just as my opponent says, show me the identical 
words which signify the eternal happiness of the saints 
in connexion with punishment and I will believe. Now 
this I wish you all to bear in mind. He has said, and 
frequently repeated in your hearing, that if I would pro- 
duce one passage where the terms -y? 'dity ny od oulami 
od, rendered world without end, are used in connexion 
with punishment, misery or death, it would be as good as 
twenty, and he would give me the argument. I am not 
ashamed to acknowledge that I was directed to such a 
one by a friend, for I did not know there was such a pas- 
sage where these very terms were used in that connexion, 
but a friend told me of one this afternoon where these terms 
are used in a connexion which, though it does not actually 
speak of torment, it is yet of the same meaning. It is 
found in the Psalms, and reads thus: (Ps. ix. 5) "Thou 
hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, 
thou hast put out their name "tt/i abiyS loulam uod, for 
ever and ever." Now this does not say that they shall en- 
dure torment in as direct a manner as my opponent has 
asked for it, but it is certainly very inconsistent with his 
doctrine of the eternal happiness of the wicked. Who, 
1 ask, can have his name put out without enduring misery 
and suffering? and this is to be for ever and ever. It, 
therefore, cannot mean that those who have their names' 
put out for ever and ever will be partakers of eternal 
happiness. But, admitting the most that can be made of 
it in my opponent's favour; call it only a disgrace and 
not a punishment, it amounts to the same thing. If they 
are disgraced or shut out from the presence of the Lord 
for ever and ever, they of course are excluded from this 
eternal happiness that is promised to his saints, conse- 
quently they must endure the mortification or pain of that 
exclusion. There can be no further objection on his part 
now, for it is the very same phrase that is translated world 
without end in Isaiah xlv. 17. It is, " ye shall not be 
ashamed nor confounded, od oulami od, world wWiont end:" 
and here it is, *' Thou hast blotted out their name, loulam 
nod," rendered "for ever and ever" It is also the same 
phrase that some would translate, from eternity to eterni- 
ty. Now, remember what he said, that if the same term 
or phrase could be found that is used to express the happi- 
ness of the saints, it would be sufficient.— He showed you 
that passage in Dan. xii. 3, "And they that be wise shall 



316 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that 
turn many to righteousness as the stars, loulam nod, for 
ever and ever," Here, then, is the same expression used 
in connexion with punishment which admits of tiie signifi- 
cation of an absolute eternity according to his own con- 
fession. 

I will now finish this subject with the Greek term that 
is used to signify absolute eternity, as I have shown you 
that it is found in the connexion in which my opponent re- 
quired of me in the Hebrew. Much light is to be obtain- 
ed from the Septuagint on this subject, and by comparing 
the passages where it is used in the New Testament with 
those in the Old, we can get its true meaning. They 
used to translate oulam to mean a future eternity, some 
examples of which I have given you. I have also shown 
you that it sometimes signifies eternity to come, and some- 
times it signifies simply eternity, without any reference to 
past, present, or to come. As proofs of this being the true 
signification of the term, I referred to several passages, 
exemplifying it as used in each sense, such as I showed 
you a while ago. I also mentioned that it was sometimes 
used when it did not signify forever, and I gave you some 
instances where it only signified the duration of a man's 
life. Sometimes it has a loose indefinite meaning, as 
when applied to things that are transitory in their dura- 
tion, as the cares and concerns of life, and sometimes it 
implies both eternity past and to come. I have shown 
you that it is used to express the eternity of God, of 
Christ's kingdom, and of the happiness of the saints, and, 
therefore, when we find it used to express the duration of 
punishment, it must necessarily imply an equally unlimit- 
ed period. 

There is one thing which is very remarkable. My op- 
ponent has admitted, and I presume he did it designedly, 
that these very Greek words which are, in twenty-six 
places, translated by the translators of the New Testa- 
ment for ever and ever, signify an absolute eternity, and 
yet in the other places in the New Testament, where the 
same term is used in connexion with punishment, he says 
it is only of temporal duration, when every critic will say 
that where there is so great a majority of places in which 
it is used to signify an absolute eternity, it necessarily 
must in the other cases, where it is connected with punish- 
ment ; for the same Greek word is used, connected with 
punishment, that it is translated forever and ever in eve- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. Hi 

ty other place, and admitted by my opponent, in a large 
majority of places, to mean an endless duration. It must 
then, of course, mean the same in these few also, when 
connected with punishment. Although I had not an op- 
portunity, in the woods of the West, of becoming acquaint- 
ed with as many languages as my opponent professes to 
be master of, nor of consulting as many libraries as those 
who reside in this city, yet I have been able to , obtain 
sufficient information on this subject to convince me that 
the term which is used in all these places, where my op- 
ponent admits that it implies an absolute eternity, is the 
same word that is used in the Chaldea, to represent the 
duration of the punishment of the wicked ; so that, if it 
implies eternity when used in connexion with the exis- 
tence of God, it must when used in connexion with pu- 
nishment ; for it is the same word. And in the Syriac, 
it is the same word that is used in all the places indiscri- 
minately ; and in the Latin, it is rendered geternus, which 
conveys the idea of a never-ending duration, and agrees 
with the true meaning of aionian, and therefore we use the 
term eternity, and not aionian to imply an endless dura- 
tion. In thirty-one places it is limited in its duration, 
and in a great many it is used to express unlimited dura- 
tion. Scapula says, that it signifies to the age of eternity, 
evidently expressing thereby a period that has no limit, 
and he further says that it signifies always being. This 
is an idea that I presume is perfectly familiar to you all, 
as I suppose that every person present knows well what 
always being means. He obtained it from Aristotle. But 
another has rendered it from eternity to eternity ; and I 
think it is the best form : as the very definition conveys 
the idea of an absolutely eternal duration* 1 therefore 
think it the best definition that any man can give to the 
term, as it embraces all that can possibly be said in rela- 
tion to if. Some, however, carry this idea of eternity so 
far that they render it an absurdity, by applying it to the 
omniscience of God ; for they say he can have no know- 
ledge himself of eternity : but every one knows that he is 
from everlasting, and will exist to everlasting: his know- 
ledge, therefore, is equal to his existence. Some others 
have translated this term in eternal to eternal ; but all of 
them convey the idea of an unlimited duration. 1 have 
thought proper to quote the opinion of different authors, 
in relation to the meaning of this term. Although I am 
not against receiving the opinion of the living authority. 



318 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

to whom my opponent appealed, yet I do not consider 
myself bound to receive the opinion of any individual in 
a matter of such importance, much less would I be willing 
to abide by his cr their decision, but as I have before 
stated, let Scripture decide Scripture. I had a great 
number of passages to produce in proof of the correctness 
of the doctrines which I have been advocating, which I 
shall decline giving you at this time. Many of them 
have been suggested to me by Clergymen and some by 
Laymen. They must, therefore, excuse me for not bring- 
ing them forward, as they know my only reason fior not 
doing so, is being limited in my time. 

I shall now make some further observations on the doc- 
trine of my opponent th^t the day of judgment has already 
taken place, and will, therefore, not succeed the resurrec- 
tion. It is said, (Matt. xxv. 31,) " When the Son of man 
.shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, 
then shall he sit' upon the throne of his glory, and before 
him shall be gathered all the nations : and he shall sepa- 
rate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his 
sheep from his goats/' &c. Now, if I understand the 
meaning of language at all, it must mean the general 
judgment, and nothing else ; for at what other time will 
all the nations be gathered before him ? I do not wish to 
take advantage of my opponent by advancing any thing 
because he will not have an opportunity of answering me, 
(this being the last thirty minutes,) but there are some 
things which I am obliged to remark on, or I should not 
consider I had discharged my duty towards you who have 
assembled here ; for, although he is not bound to speak 
any longer than he chooses, yet I consider myself bound 
to remove, as far as I am enabled, any erroneous impres- 
sions he may have left upon your minds. He has said that 
the eternal life here promised, is the reward of works. 
It is through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which 
he has freely given to them, and he gives them this eter- 
nal life, as a reward of their faith in him, and the righ- 
teous know themselves that it is not the reward of their 
works ; for they say to him, when he lias told them what 
they have done, they having viewed themselves as great 
sinners, who have never of themselves done a good action, 
M Lord, when saw we thee an hungered and fed thee? or 
thirsty and gave the drink ? When saw we thee a stran- 
ger, and took thee in ? or naked and clothed thee ? Or, 
when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee ? 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 31§ 

And the King shall answer and say unto thetn, Verily I 
say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the 
least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." — 
So that it seems they have performed these good things 
without knowing any thing about it. In like manner do 
they receive the divine grace without knowing any thing 
about it, and they receive the reward for what they do not 
know until it is communicated to them ; they could not 
remember any of these good actions which they had done. 
But when he says unto the wicked " Depart from me, ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and 
his angels ; for I was an hungered, and ye gave me no 
meat," &c. you will perceive that they hold quite ano- 
ther doctrine. They think, like the Pharisees of old, that 
they are perfectly holy. They can see no evil in their 
actions. They do not view themselves as sinners. There- 
fore they say, "Lord when saw we thee an hungered," &c. 
" and did minister unto thee." And the King shall an- 
swer, " Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of 
these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into 
everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eter- 
nal." They think they are perfectly free from sin in all 
their actions 5 and I am very sorry to see that my oppo- 
nent has, in his book, (Lectures,) made a remark which 
signifies that the sins of the soul are nothing; for, in 
speaking of them he says, " I have only room to say, in 
general terms, that, as the diseases of the body are only 
privations of health, so the disorders of the mind are all 
merely negative, a lack or want of their contrary virtues ; 
the same as darkness is nothing more than the absence of 
light. Hence, ignorance, folly, injustice, hatred, cruelty, 
&c. are only the want of knowledge, wisdom, justice, love, 
mercy, &c. and, therefore, these are the sovereign reme- 
dies for the mind, yea, all the remedies for the moral ma- 
ladies and vices of the human heart, are to be sought for 
in their contrary virtues." See Lee. p. 195. 

You will perceive, that according to my opponent, there 
is nothing positive in sin at all. The same he has observ- 
ed in relation to darkness, which he says is nothing more 
than the absence of light. Now, if he does not mean by 
these remarks to insinuate that sin is a negation, a mere 
nothing, I do not know the meaning of language ; and I 
candidly confess that I do not know the use or meaning of 
words if it does not support me in what I before stated in 
relation to this doctrine of his, which is calculated, by 



320 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

making light of sin, to cause vice and immorality to 
abound. For this reason, 1 am willing to do and to suffer 
all things, with Christ helping me to show the falseness 
of their doctrine, because they say that sin is nothing; 
but, my friends, sin is awful in itself and in its effects and 
consequences; it brings eternal damnation on the soul of 
him who makes light of it and rolls it like a sweet morsel 
under his tongue. Yes, sin is of so damning a nature that 
the apostle could find no word to express it. Not so with 
those who hold the doctrine of my opponent, they say that 
sin is nothing; but do you not know what the Bible says, 
(Prov. xiv. 9,) " Fools make a mock at sin." 1 do not 
quote this out of disrespect to my opponent, nor of any 
person present, but from a sense of duty, to show you what 
the scripture saith, and what my opponent's doctrine teach* 
es. — I do not expect to live long, but while I am permitted 
to remain here, I wish faithfully to perform my duty to 
all, and when I speak of sinners, I do not speak against 
Universalists only, but include all, and also myself, for I 
verily believe, that since the commencement of this discus- 
sion, I have sinned enough to damn a whole world, if God 
should impute it to them. Now, this I sincerely believe, 
and therefore confess it thus publicly, in the sight of God, 
and of my friends, and also of my enemies. And I de- 
clare unto you, that sin is not negative with me— I cannot 
call it nothing. Sin, with me, is sin ; and I hope I may 
view it as such so long as I live, and I shall be more like- 
ly to escape its evil consequences. I wish to say as Mo- 
ses said, who thought sin was a very serious thing, and 
who has declared that God will, by no means, clear the 
guilty, that is, of the consequences of their sins, not of 
the consequences of their nothing ; he prays the Lord to 
pardon the sins of him and the people and to take them 
for his inheritance, (Exod. xxxiv. 7 — 8,) or say with Da- 
vid, (Ps. lxxxiv. 10,) " I would rather be a doorkeeper in 
the house of my God than to dwell in the tents of wicked- 
ness." Yes, my friends, I would rather be the object of 
reproach than to cherish sin as a doctrine contained in the 
scriptures, or to reject the gospel of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ. Far be it from me to put a cloak over my 
sins to hide them from myself or from the sight of men : 
for I would rather acknowledge them in the sight of God 
and man, and pray that I might obtain forgiveness for 
them, through the all-atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, 
who offered up himself to save sinners from the just pun- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION"* 321 

ishment due to them for their sins. But it is not so with 
my opponent, he thinks that sin is nothing, and of course 
no atonement is necessary, as God will not punish his 
creatures for doing nothing. He has hinted to us, how- 
ever, that a little honesty is necessary, even according to 
his doctrine ; hut according to our system, he says, a man 
may be a little dishonest. I would ask you which system 
is the most likely to make men dishonest, that which says, 
dishonesty is no harm ; it is sin, to be sure, but sin is no- 
thing — the sinner will not be punished j or taat system 
which represents dishonesty as a great sin which God 
will punish, for he will, in no wise, clear the guilty ? But 
now, while I think of it, let me return this /an to the one 
who was kind enough to loan it to me, if present, lest I 
should be charged with dishonesty in practice. The 
christian doctrine does not teach a man to be dishonest : 
for no christian will rest if he borrow a pin, or a fan, till 
he has returned it to the lender. 

Before I close I wish to give you a hint of what will 
probably be said in relation to the close of this discussion. 
— You must all have observed the importance which my 
opponent and his friends have assumed by closing their 
house upon me; and I wish you to notice this fact, they 
will say that it has been with me as it is actually with, 
themselves, — that I have been afraid to continue it any 
longer. 

But to return to the moral tendency of the two doc- 
trines : — the holder of the one, says, I am determined, 
with God enabling me, to forsake all the pleasures and 
vices of the world, and to seek after God : — the other says, 
I will indulge in all those pleasures and vices, for they are 
nothing ! You know what follows — 3011 know the ruin that 
is brought on society in consequence of this pernicious 
doctrine, and the misery it produces to all who follow its 
precepts, both single and married. I am not dealing in 
fiction — I speak that which can be proved, that there is 
hardly a family in this city but some member of it is more 
or less contaminated with this doctrine of Universalism, 
producing wretchedness and misery in those who hold it 
and those connected with them by the ties of kindred, and 
you who are Universalists know this statement to be true. 

When I was in dear Kentucky, I was conversing with 
one about the theatre, proving to him the sin he committed 
in attending such places, — he defended it, and observed, I 
love the theatre as well as you do your church or closet. I 

41 



S22 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

want amusement and there I find it; neither do T see any 
more harm in going there than in going to church. — Is 
not this, generally, the opinion of Universal ists, and are 
there not some of the Universalists present who have hon- 
esty enough to confess it? 

Thus, then, does the doctrine of Universalism, hy mak- 
ing light of sin and declaring it shall not he punished, en- 
tail misery upon all the rising generation, hy encouraging 
them to go on in vice and immorality, and to fill them- 
selves with the pleasures of this world, for no harm can 
come of it ; while the contrary doctrine, that which we ad- 
vocate and which we believe to he the gospel of Christ, 
teaches to forsake sin and those pleasures which are of a 
sinful nature, and to embrace the truth contained in the 
gospel ; to follow our divine head, in all godliness and 
fear, for without holiness no man can see God. — I thank 
the audience for their kind attention, and the Universa- 
lists for the use of their house. — May God bless you all 
for Christ's sake, Amen. 



END OF THE DISCUSSION 



( 323 ) 

Jls Mr. Kneeland had no opportunity of replying to the 
new matter brought forward in his opponenfs last speech, 
he has requested me to insert the following 



CONCLUSION: 

Mr, ICneeland. — As I had pledged myself not to solicit 
a further continuance of the discussion, my opponent, in 
his last half hour, became more abusive in his language, 
and more bold in his misrepresentations. It is a pleasure 
to us, however, to know that what he has said of Univer- 
salists generally, as well as of the tendency of the doctrine, 
is totally incorrect : though it is possible, that in the heat 
of his zeal, he might imagine that he was telling some- 
thing like the truth ; and it is equally possible that his 
bare "word" will be sufficient with many to induce them 
to receive it as such. All this, therefore, I am disposed 
to let pass, relying on the good sense of judicious readers 
to judge between us. 

In regard to the text with which his friend furnished 
him, and with which he seemed to think he had silenced 
me, it is only necessary to say, that notwithstanding he 
repeatedly said that the words were the same as in Isaiah 
xlv. 17, yet they are not so; and even if they were, the 
text would make nothing against me. David was speak- 
ing of an event that was then past, and which has no refer- 
ence to a future state of existence. — The words in Isaiah 
xlv. 17, are *fy *£ Sty ^W* od oulami od, which are ren- 
dered, in the common version, world without end. In 
Psalm ix. 5, they are t;»i DSiy^, loulam uod, which are ren- 
dered forever and ever. But let it be understood to have 
the same meaning and it makes nothing against the uni- 
versal salvation of those very heathen; for although their 
names may be completely blotted out of remembrance, yet 
they may be "raised up at the last day," and have a 
"new name" given them. See John vi. 39 — Rev. ii. 17. 



( 324 ) 



ADDENDUM. 



Page 317, line 18, ["In the Latin it is rendered seturnus. 
which conveys the idea of never-ending duration, and agrees 
with the true meaning of aionion."] 

Now see the definition of seturnus. 

JEturnus, 1 Eternal. 2 Continual, perpetual. 3 Last- 
ing, of long continuance, during life. Ains worth's Lat. 
Diet. 

We perfectly agree that this is the " true meaning' 5 
both of the Hebrew Ofeijr oulam, and the Greek *mw aionion. 
Of course, the punishment of the wicked shall be "of long 
continuance," even " during life ;" that is, during the life 
of wickedness. Hence, as it has been contended during 
the whole debate, in order to prove that punishment will 
be " absolutely eternal," it must be first proved that sin 
will be absolutely eternal ! 



( 325 ) 

The following Letters passed between Mr. M'Calla and 
Mr. Kne eland after the close of the foregoing Discussion : 

Mr. Kneeland, 

In the " Democratic Press" I observe a dispute be- 
tween "Paul" on one side, and you and "A Vestryman" 
on the other side, whether or not I was brought to a pre- 
mature close, in the discussion in Lombard-street Church. 
Your arguments and statements I deem incorrect. Yet, 
one feature of your publication gives me pleasure. It is 
an indication of a willingness on your part to hear me un- 
til I am satisfied. You have, now, at least, given me "to 
understand, that in all probability, the house might be ob- 
tained as long as it should be wanted." Another meeting 
would give you an opportunity of answering that new 
matter to which you made no reply, and it would show 
whether my materials were exhausted or not. This would 
be suitable on another account : your challenge which was 
accepted in my letter of the 2d inst. "invites and intreats 
the clergy to discuss" not only one error, but "the sup- 
posed errors" of your Lectures. During the debate I 
showed that they erred on the Divinity of Christ, and in- 
timated a willingness to meet you at a convenient season 
on that point. That intimation is now renewed. If you 
still entertain the desire manifested in your repeated chal- 
lenges, it can now (God willing) be gratified at the same 
place, with the same rules, and under the same modera- 
tors. Your speedy answer will be a gratification to 

W. L. M-CALLA. 

Philadelphia, July 31, 1824, 
No. 69 North Third Street. 



Mr. M'Calla, 

As our former letters are published in the "Gazet- 
teer," and the subsequent discussion is now in the Press, I 
shall publish, through the same medium, yours of the 3ist 
ult. together with this my reply. 

You say that you deem my " arguments and statements'' 
to be " incorrect ;" but you have not informed me to what 
arguments you allude, nor wherein my statements have 
been incorrect. This is reprehensible* No man ought to 

42 



( 326 ) 

be charged with having made incorrect statements, with- 
out being informed, at the same time, wherein. 

Although I had pledged myself, and was determined to 
hear you through at that time, yet I have given no pledge 
to meet you again in the same way ; and whether I do, 
must depend on circumstances which are first to be con- 
sidered. — As the Church in Lombard street, in which we 
held our late discussion, has been since, (at considerable 
expense,) both cleaned and repaired, I am not able to say 
whether it could be so soon obtained again for a similar 
purpose. 

As to the new matter to which I had not an opportunity 
to reply, (Ps. ix. 5,) since it makes nothing in your fa- 
vour, nor against any of my arguments, a bare note of a 
very few lines, will be all the reply 1 shall need. 

Whether your materials were all exhausted or not, is a 
matter of no consequence ; for if you could spend four days 
without the least attempt to reply to either my first or se- 
cond argument, both of which were presented in my first 
speech, (to neither of which did you attempt any reply,) 
you probably might continue a month in the same way ; 
and, after all, to no purpose. 

If you wish to discuss the u supposed errors" of my 
Lectures, you must do it in the way the challenge (as you 
call it) was given, namely, through the medium of the 
press ; for, as those Lectures have been so long before the 
public, I shall discuss that subject in no other way: nor, 
unless you are able to point out errors which are material 
and important in point of doctrine or fact, do I pledge 
myself to reply. You have said that thu'e were errors in 
my Lectures, but you have not yet shown any. I did not 
think proper to contradict what you was pleased to say 
about them during the discussion, (except when you tried 
to pervert a single sentence,) and it was for this plain rea- 
son, — because they were not mentioned in the proposition 
for discussion. 

Now, sir, I wish you distinctly to understand, notwith- 
standing whatever you may say about challenges, that be- 
fore I will consent to debate with a man on any religious 
subject whatever, at any time or place, who has not only 
refused to unite with me in religious worship, but who has 
refused to give me his hand when mine was extended to 
him in token of friendship, in my own desk, he must give 
me satisfactory evidence that the clergy with whom he is 
connected, and with whom he professes to be in fellowship, 



( m ) . 

liowcver much they nay disapprove of his conduct in 
this particular, nevertheless consider him as a brother in 
the faith, and approve of his mode of arguing on religious 
subjects. This, with me, is a sine qua non % and unless it 
he complied with, it will he useless to urge any -thing fur- 
ther on the subject. 

If I meet a man to discuss religious subjects before the 
public, I must meet him on the level; — he is not to have 
the privilege of assuming that lie is a christian, and that 
his antagonist is an infidel, until he has proved, botli from 
theory and practice, that such is the fact. — I ask, in this 
case, no more than what I am willing to give, should it he 
required. — Or, let your friends open the doors of one of 
their Churches, to accommodate the audience, as mine have 
done, and I will consider it a satisfactory evidence that 
they are with you in this debate. 

These preliminaries being settled, the first thing in or- 
der to be attended to, is, what has been already proposed, 

1. You must show the law of God which requires " ab- 
solutely eternal punishment," or else acknowledge that no 
such law has been given to man 

2. You must show that God has threatened man, through 
the medium of his prophets, with a punishment which is 
*' absolutely eternal," or else acknowledge that you can- 
not. 

3. You must prove, from the New Testament, that there 
will be the wicked, (I's. xxxvii. 10,) and, of course, a pun- 
ishment for the wicked, after this mortal shall have put 
on immortality, or after that death is swallowed up of life, 
(1 Cor. xv. 54, — 2 Cor. v. 4,) or acknowledge that you 
cannot. 

4. No evidence will be admitted as a proof of a punish- 
ment between death and the resurrection, that is, in what 
is called an intermediate state, unless you can first prove 
that the soul or spirit of man (whatever you may under- 
stand by those terms) is susceptible of consciousness, and 
of course, of happiness or misery, independent of the or- 
gans of sense, or separate from a body. 

5. I, on my part, will prove the latter part of our for- 
mer proposition true, and that all mankind will ultimately 
be saved from sin, and consequently from punishment, or 
else acknowledge that I cannot. 

6. It shall be mutually agreed, that the moment either 
wanders from the point in debate, in the opinion of either 
two of the moderators, he shall be stopped ; and unless he 



( 328 ) 

will confine himself to the snhject, in proper and decorous 
language, he shall not be allowed to proceed. 

7. The moderators to be the same as on the last day of 
our former discussion, or such as may be mutually agreed 
upon. 

With these regulations, and as many of the former as 
are not inconsistent with these, I should have no objection 
to continue the discussion till every point is fully settled, 
if practicable. 

A. KNEELAND. 

«?V*o. 31 South Second Street, 
August 2, 1824. 



INDEX OF TEXTS, EITHER QUOTED OR REFERRED TO IN 
THIS WORK. 

The following texts were quoted btj Mr. Kneeland. 



Gen. ii. 16, 17, 
iii. 17, 19, 
iv. 11, 12, 
ix. 5, 6, 
xii. 3, 

23, 24, 
xiii. 14, 15, 
xvii. 8, 
Ex. xi. 15, 
Lev. xxvi. 
Num. xxv. 13, 
Deut. xviii. 15 — 
x xviii. 
xxx. 19, 
Job v. 17, 
x. 21, 
Ps.ii. 8 
in. 12, 
x. 7, 
xiv. 2, 3, 
xix. 11, 
xxii. 27—29, 
xxxvii. 10, 
lxxxix. 30—34 
xc.3, 
ex. 3, 
cxv. 17, 
cxvi. 3, 
Prov. xi. 31, 
Eccl. ix. 5, 



18, 



17 
17 

18 
18 

120 
30 

197, 306 
253 

20 

253 

270 

20 

271 

140 

165 

123 

140 

256 

16 

44 

121 

258 

45, 1C8 

294 

295 

31 

141 

44 

31 



Isa. viii. 20, J 

xxv. 7, 8, 
xxviii. 21, 
xlv. 17, 

xlvi. 10, 
liii. 6, 

11, 

liv. 17, 

Ixvi. 24, 
Jer. xxxi. 3, 
Ezek. xviii. 20—22, 
Dan. ix. 24, 

xii. 1—3, 



Hoscai. 6—9, 

Jonah iv. 

Habak. iii. 6, 

Matt. i. 21, 
V. 29, 

43-48, 
ix. 13, 
48, 
x. 31-42, 
xi. 27, 
xii. 31, 32, 
xvi. 26, 
xviii, 8, 
xix. 28, 
xxii. 37, 



193, 



16, 17S 

122 

45 

141,160,161, 

175, 276, 193 

294 

16 

290 

291 

136, 138, 16* 

141 

228 

92 

59, 162, 181, 

195,199,211 

295 

296 

253 

92, 255 

138 

197,230 

70 

117 

45, 290 

123 

138 

55 

130 

91 

294 



( 329) 

Matt, xxiii. 15, p. 123, 177, 1 1 Cor. xv. 22, 199,211 

xxiv. 16-21, 57,72,211 \ 51-54, 122,239 

34, 57 S 2 Cor. iv. 14, 312 

xxr. 41— 46, 140, 226, 227, J 17, 227,258 

269, 276, 308 t v. 19, 293 

xxvi. 24, 78, 89, 90 £ xiii. 1, 252 

33-35, 241 \ Gal. iii. 16, 120 

xxvii. 25 t 93 \ Eph. i. 3, 4, 120, 227 

Mark iii. 9, 138 \ 9, 10, 123, 292 

29, 139 > ii. 8, ■ 228, 277 

viii. 38,? -- | Philip, ii. 9 — 11, 310,313 

ix. 1, 5 I Col. i. 19, 20, 123,293 

43—48, 136, 138, 166 | iii. 25, 228 

Lukeix. 26, 27, 56 1 2 Thes. i. 7—10, 55 

x. 22, 123 i iv. 13,14, 239 

xvi. 19, 135 i 1 Tim. i. 13, 71 

xxi. 22, 58, 269, 271 \ 15, 255 

xxiii. 34, 179 $ ii. 1—6, 230,295 

43, 71 i Tit. i. 2 229 

John i. 45. 270 • | Philem. 15, 226, 561 

iii. 17, 230, 290, 300 > Heb. i. 2, 123 

35, 123 J ii. 6 ~9, 230, 231 

v. 28, 29, 199 I vii. 16, 193, 228, 255 

vi. 28, 257 3 xii. 6-11, 45,180, 

31—39, 289,290 5 14, 72 

xii. 31, 56 I 29, 136 

47, 290 < James iii. 6, 177 

xiii. 3, 123 \ 17, 229 

xiv. 28, 257 1 2 Pet. ii. 2, 198 

xvii. 2, 123 i ii. 4, 54 

3, 257,272 \ 6, 274 

xviii. 37, 312 \ 9,12, 294 

Acts i. 13, 93 % 1 John ii. 2, 230, 242, 256 

25, 91 \ iii. 15, 271 

ii. 34, 29,258,275 \ 21, 310,313 

tti. 22— 25, 120,270 \ iv. 18, 241 

vii. 37, 270 \ v. 10, 11, 228,242 

x. 34, 229 i 13, 272 

xx. 17, 257 \ Jude 6, 54 

27, 176 I Rev. i. 12—18, 257 

Rom. ii. 6 -11, 92 \ v. 13, 124,231 

iii. 10,12, 16 \ vi. 10, 42 

27, 277 | xvi. 6, 43 

v. 19, 199 xix.10, 256 

vii 9, 10, 255 i xx. 13-15, 196,237,238 

viii, 2, 71 | x*4i. 9-16, 257 

12, QS5 I 



330 ) 



Texts quoted by Mr, M'Calla. 



Gen. yr. 3 p 

Ex. xxi. 6 

xxxiv. 7, 8 
Deut. xxxii. 13 
Num. x xv. 13 
1 Kings iii. 16, 28 
Job v. 7 

xxiii. 13 
xxx. 1 
Ps. i. 5 
ii.8 
vi. 5 
viii. 6 
ix. 5 
x. 16 
xi. 2 
xvii. 4 
xxv. 10 
xxxii. 6 
xlii. 2 
lxv. 6 
Ixxiii. 3,8,17,18 

12 
lxxxiv. 10 
cii.26, 27 
12, 25 
cui. 17 
clxv. 13 
Prov. i. 6 

iii. 33 
vi.18 
xiv. 9 
xxix. 1 
Eccl. i. 4 
iii. 2 

ix. 3, 10 
xi. 3 
Isa ix. 7 
xi. 9 
xviii. 13 
xxxv. 10 
xlv. 13 
17 



185, 



xlvi. 10 

xlix. 26 

lv. 6 
Jer. vii.33 

xxiii. 40 
Lam. v. 19 
Ezek. v. 6 

xviii. 20 
32 
"Dan. iv.34 



.99 
126 

320 

66 

126 

237 

25 

282 

37 

101,245 

188, 279, 299 

38 

298 

315,323 

128 

127 

62 

65 

23 

146 

127, 189 

37 

126 

320 

98 

127 

128 

128 

33 

65 

201 

320 

101 

127 

126 

38, 100 

24 

98 

285 

52 

129 

113 

129, 148,153, 

204, 315, 323 

282 

65 

23 

143 

113,129 

127 

39 

39 

279, 282 

128 



Dan. vii. 8 p. 128 
14 98 
xii. 2 113, 131, 153, 
187,200,201,266,315,323 
129, 156, 200, 
201, 2o6, 315, 323 
283 
313 
49 
127 
66 
109 



Xll. o 

Hosea iv. 6 

Jonah iv. 
Habak. i. 12. 13 

iii. 6 
Mai. xiii. 47 
Matt. i. 8c ii. 
iii. 2 
10 
12 
v. 3, 11 
12, 47, 51 
46 
vi. 2 
13 
vii. 9 
14 
15 
21 
x. 15 
xii. 24 

31,32 
xiii. 11,12 
19, 25 
22 
38 
39 
xviii. 2 
8 
xix. 29 
xx. 16 
xxi. 19 
28 
xxiii. 37 
xxiv. 3 

48,51 
xxv. 31, 46 

xx vi. 24 
xxvii. 42 
Mark iii. 29 

ix. 43, 44 



I 

i Luke 



45 
x.30 

xiii. 19, 20 
xvi. 15, 16 
i. & ii. 
i. 55 



24, 101 

109, 266 

63 

24 

36 

62 

15), 188 

266 

38 

52, 100 

99 

38 

60 

112,157,245 

38 

59 

158 

24 

155 

35 

114 

261 

285 

iyi 

284 

23, 284 

126 

66 

36,67,97,114, 

266, 286, 318 

63, 85, 95 

185 

113 

101,114,245, 

266 

109 

156 

36 

37 

109 

189 



( 531 ) 



I„iike i. 70. 
ix. 25 




( 332 ) 



Heb. III. 15 


23 


iv.15 


223 


vi.2 


114, 264 


4,6 


111,283 


viii.12 


130 


ix. 11,12 


248 


14 


206 


26 


97 


x. 26, 29 


111 


xi. 26 


97 


xii.8 


66 


14 


49 


20,29 


110 


25 


64 


26, 27 


150 


28 


99 


James ii. 13 


100 


1 Pet. i. 21 


133 


25 


189 


ir.ll 


156 


18 


64 


v. 4 


99 


10 


223 


2 Pet. ii. 4 


53 


14 


113 


i«. 9 


279, 282 


10 


150 


1 John i. 7 


35 


ii. 8 


297 


14 


262 


17 


190 




( 335 ) 



TO THE READER. 

The Rev. W. L. M'Calla, before he saw a line of this Report, publicly 
denounced it as "partial, unsatisfactory, and spurious," and in this pre- 
determined opinion he still persists : he has had every number presented 
to him for his inspection as it appeared from the press, and has been 
both publicly and privately called upon to show wherein it is incorrect, 
or even to point out one error affecting the argument on either side, but 
this he has not attempted.- It is rather singular that he should still try- 
to prejudice the public against this report, and yet acknowledge, as he 
did to me, that the arguments contained in it, according to the opinion 
of himself and friends, are decidedly in his favour, particularly as he 
knows, that if I had not published the discussion, it would have been 
lost to the greater part of the world; for no other person reported the 
whole of the debate, consequently no other than myself could have fur- 
nished it. It was, therefore, reasonably expected that no man, on ac- 
count of his religious prejudices, would object to doing me an act of 
justice, by certifying to the correctness of this report, when published, 
if he believed it to be so ; the contrary, however, can be proved. 

A Presbyterian gentleman, who took notes during a part of the de- 
bate, and who was requested, if he believed it correct, to give his cer- 
tificate, stated, in the presence of several witnesses, that, according to 
his notes, and as far as his memory served him, the report was substan- 
tially correct; but, as he was still a believer in the doctrines of his Church, 
and conceiving the* argument, on the part of his advocate, might have 
been more ably conducted, he declined giving his certificate in writing. 

Although it is desirable that I should have the certificates from all 
who believe the report to be correct, without any distinction on account 
of sectarian principles, still, if the prejudice of the above gentleman be 
general, my ill-judged expectation will be defeated. The certificates, 
however, already received, are sufficient to satisfy all unprejudiced minds 
of the fidelity with which the arguments, on each side, have been fur- 
nished, 

Tery respectfully, 

R. L. JENNINGS, 



C 334 ) 



THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATES, FROM THOSE RECEIVED 
IN TIME TO BE BOUND WITH THE WORK, ARE SELECTED. 



From the Rev. W. Hdgan, late Pastor of St. Mary's Church, 
South Fourth Street, and the Rev. W. Morse, Pastor of 
. the 2d Universalist Church, Callowhill Street. 

TO THE PUBLIC, 

We, the subscribers, hereby certify, that we have examined the 
"Minutes" of the "Theological Discussion" between the Rev. Abner 
Kneeland and the Rev. William L. M'Calla, which were taken in short- 
hand by Mr. R. L. Jennings, and, in our opinion, they contain a true and 
faithful report of that Discussion without any omissions or additions af- 
fecting 1 the arguments of either of the disputants. 

WILLIAM HOG AN, ~) „ . 
WILLIAM MORSE, 5 &&*<*"•- 

Philadelphia, Oct. 13, 1824. 



The Rev. Dr. Ely, of the 3d Presbyterian Church, Pine St. 
has certified as follows : 

At the request of Mr. Jennings, I would state, that I have not been 
able, since the publication of his "Minutes of a Discussion," &c. to read 
more than fifty pages of the work, which is less than one sixth part of 
the whole. So soon as I can find time to read the whole, I shall freely 
communicate, at his request, my opinion of the same. — During the de- 
bate of Tuesday afternoon, July 13th, I was absent, so that 1 can only 
express an opinion on the first forty pages, and the short speech attribut- 
ed to myself, on pages 234 and 23.5, concerning which I am free to de- 
clare, that I discover in these forty-two pages, so far as my memory serves 
me, no important error or omission. I think the forty-two pages, of which 
I now give my opinion, as just a statement of what was uttered in my 
hearing, as could be expected of any stenographer, who should attempt 
to follow men of ready utterance, in a debate of twenty hours. 

EZRA STILES ELY. 

Philadelphia, Oct. 12, 1824. 



( S35 ) 

Ceriifcate from the Rev. Jbner Kneeland, Pastor of the 1st 
Independent Church of Christ, called Universalist, Lom- 
bard Street 

Having carefully examined the report of the late " Discussion" be. 
tween the Rev. W. L. M'Calla and myself, as taken in short hand and pub. 
lished by Mr. Jennings, I hereby certify, that the arguments are essen- 
tially the same as delivered by us, in all their parts, together with the 
style and manner in which they were delivered : and although in many 
places I can perceive some verbal difference, yet, as far as my memory 
serves me, there is nothing added or omitted which in any manner affects 
the arguments on either side. 

ABNER KNEELAND, 

Philadelphia, Oct. 15th, 1824. 



Certificate from D. Francis Condie, JIT. D. 

Mr. R. L. Jennings, 

Dear Sir, — I received your request this morning, and in reply, beg 
leave to state, that 1 attended during the whole of the Discussion be- 
tween the Rev. A. Kneeland and Rev. W. L. M'Calla, on the subject of 
the punishment for sin, part of which I myself took down ; I have perus- 
ed with attention your " Minutes" of that Discussion, as published, and 
have the pleasure of certifying to their correctness. You have not only 
presented every argument offered on both sides of the question, but, 
what is always a very difficult task, have retained in the report, the pe- 
culiar style of each party, and most generally, their xery words. I may 
further add, that those with whom I have conversed, in relation to the 
work, as well those who oppose as those who believe in the doctrines 
held by the Universalist Churches, have all borne testimony to its cor- 
rectness. Yours, 

D. FRANCIS CONDIE, 
South Fifth Street, October 13th, 1824. 



The Rev. Dr. Wylie, of the Presbyterian Church, Eleventh Street, 
has given me permission to certify to the following effect : 

That from motives of curiosity, rather than of approbation, he attend- 
ed at the Church in Lombard Street, during the debate between the 
Rev. Abner Kneeland and the Rev. W. L. M'Calla, three times, (in the 
whole, about two hours and a half,) and although he has seen, in the 
public papers, that the report is not acknowledged by the Rev. Mr. 
M'Calla to be correct, yet truth obliges him to declare, that he cannot dis- 
cover the least difference, even in expression, between what is contained 
in the report and what he heard delivered by the speakers when at the 
Church. 

More certificates of the correctness of the report have been received^ 
hut the above, it is presumed, will be considered fully satisfactory. 

R, L. JENNINGS; 



( 336 ) 



ERRA TA. 

Page 10, line 4, Cf rom tne bottom) for share read have 

20, lines 4 and 5, for this dialogue, rearf the decalogue, 
27, /we 15, Cfrom the bottom J for wave rate? leave. 

42, 18, ffrom the top, J for has read have 

7, /or young mechanics reac/ apprentice boys 
51, 25, for law read Lord 
57, 8, dele tha{ 6.^>re when 

78, 28, Cf rom t ^ le t0 Pj f or Hieronymous read Hieronymus 

for Hutterius read Hutterus 
79 3, after 136 years old, add, i have given it a new coat, for 
1 thought it worthy rjf it, 

79, 3, (f*» Me note J for nvfanroi read etvQpeonros 

4, ,/or Mont, rend* Hutt. 

5, /or si natus non &c. rear/ sj non natus kc. Mor.t* 

6, /or homoni read homini 

Page 83, line 11 Cf rofn tn€ to PO after all, add a comma, thus—all. 
Episcopalians, &c. 

85, last line, for he declares read I declare 

90 y 9, inserf as before, in the text 

91, 13, insert of Judas o/^r salvation 

98, 13, CJ rom ifie bottom, J for they read thy 

99, 17, insert what £p/ore all 

102, 5, CJ ro7n tne bottom J — insert to tf/ter not 

109, 3, *Wrf he tells you after but 

114, 4, for speries read species 

124, liist line, for argument read arguments 

128, 12, insert Eternity before past 

Page 169, after the words French accent, read, Or should I have un- 
derstood him as Sterne in his " Sentimental Journey," understood the 
owner of the Dead Ass, by the accent of his apostrophe to it ? 

Page 171, after " I know to the contrary," insert " But he has the ta» 
lent of making men any thing, to suit his own views; thus, he has some- 
where asserted, that l)rs. Wilson and Campbell are both Universalists.'^ 

Page 178 last line, for passage, read expression, 
202 line 10 from bottom, for verv, read very. 

202 14 for efiect, read effect. 

203 14, for opponant, read opponent. 
205 10, for seid, read said. 

207 31 7 * 

220 9 from bottom, $ for Sca P ukt > read Sca P nla > 

226 11, for Maikright, read Macknight. 

228 1, for incipients, read recipients. 

238 2, insert were before contained. 

240 5 from bottom, inserts before predicated 

Ftigc 250, line 3, Cf rom ^ ie bottom J for JW# read Judge 
256, 1, dele no before Salvation 

'-■92, 11, for peaking read specking 



y^ 



>_> . AJL- ^>J2> 





>, _>> .» ^ . 

► » » >> 


3> 
» 

1 













9 * 




2 


>> > 

» 


- 


►1 


^*1 _-^ ' 


^1 


>3D 


Vi 




M 


>> 


.$>. z , 


35? j 

















> > >> - 

mi* 






> 5 *_* 



>^ -*;>* --_,. N 
X> JD>' 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



>m*m?sx£ 






> > > 

> >:i > :? 






* -? =3S?>^ 















fl^ 












*>_> 2X7" 






> > > 









'-BOP* 



r>3 rfS^3p 



